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



Influential people are getting the message: Gina Rinehart explains the science of climate change

Cover: Australian Resources and Investment Dec 2011

The key messages are not lost on the bright and influential, and even if the mass-media avoid the evidence, the facts are quietly storming their way through the echelons of power. For the future historians, here’s a glimpse of how information networks grow and evolve behind the scenes.

Once upon a time, the missing hot spot and the water vapor amplification were virtually unknown. In Jan 2009 2010, Tony Kelly (a member of the Royal Society) met David and me privately in Perth. He grasped the implications of the model amplification in a flash. There’s a world of difference between the certainty of the 1.2 C direct effect of CO2, and the highly uncertain assumptions that push it up to 3.3 C. Three months later, not coincidentally, the Royal Society was approached by deeply concerned skeptical members, and had to formally reconsider its position.

In June this year, we were lucky enough to dine with Matt Ridley, who likewise picked up the message, and is spreading it — see his acclaimed speech in November. A few weeks ago,  I noticed Lord Lawson and Lord Turnbull  similarly argued the same meme (though I don’t know that we deserve any direct credit for that).

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Internet is the gift of gifts. How easy would it have been for the government departments, coopted scientists, and obedient media to have gotten away with the outrageous scam of forcing us to pay to change the weather? Their lock on the mainstream media would have made it easy to disguise the truth. And yet, it crumbles (all  bar the Antipodes).

Then last week, I met Gina Rinehart at the Mannkal Christmas party, and she was keen to let me know that she’d mentioned David and the key points of evidence in an article for the Australian Resources and Investment publication.

A day later, Gina Rinehart was disappointed and surprised that the editors decided to cut her description of the scientific evidence — though those of us who explain science have learnt to expect that. (It’s as if editors are deathly afraid a scientific argument might bore the readers, when here, below, if readers didn’t already know it, are the blockbuster points that back up her claims.) It’s clear she is well versed. She’s carefully picked out the most important points. I’m grateful she’s given me permission to reprint the excerpts of her article, most especially the unpublished parts. Naturally, any credit for what Gina knows belongs to Gina, but — credit where credit is due — thanks to Monckton, Carter and Plimer too.

And lest anybody misunderstand, I take no credit at all for shifting Gina to a skeptical view — given that she’s been surrounded by Geologists for decades — it’s hard to imagine she was ever un-skeptical.

Resources the life-raft in an economic storm

By Gina Rinehart

Gina Rinehart

See the published article here. Below is the scientific evidence that was in the original, but not in the final printed copy.

“Australia was able to withstand the global economic crisis of 2008/2009 due to its fundamental strength in natural resources…

“Now as a recession approaches is not the time to burden Australia with carbon (dioxide) tax and MRRT, and nor is a carbon (dioxide) tax necessary in any event.

 Please consider the following scientific evidence:

1. The atmosphere currently has <0.04% CO2, in former times it was up to 30%.  Six of the six great ice ages formed at a time when atmospheric carbon dioxide was far higher than now. Clearly, this did not drive warming.

2. For 80% of past geological time, planet Earth has been warmer than today, with far more CO2 in the atmosphere. Clearly, this warming was neither irreversible nor catastrophic.

3. At times in the past (Carboniferous, Cretaceous, Eocene) the Earth experienced sudden injections of CO2 into the atmosphere.  In response, the planet warmed slightly but less than daily changes we experience now and not in an irreversible or catastrophic way.

4. Ice cores from Antarctica show that atmospheric CO2 increases around 800 years after natural events of warming i.e. natural warming drives carbon dioxide emissions, not the inverse.

5.Over the last 120,000 years, there have been 25 periods of warming where temperature rose by up to 8 deg C. These were not driven by human emissions, were natural and were neither irreversible nor catastrophic.

6.Sea level rose 130 metres between 12,000 and 6,000 years ago and temperatures were at a maximum 6,000 years ago. For the last 6,000 years we have been cooling with intermittent warm periods (Minoan, Roman, Medieval, Modern). In the first three warming periods, it was far warmer than now, sea level did not rise and such warmings clearly were not a result of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases. The Modern Warming commenced 300 years ago.  It has not been demonstrated which part of this warming is natural and which part is of human origin, and since 1998 the Earth has been cooling despite a rapid rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

7. Since thermometer measurements were first being taken the Earth has warmed (1860-1880), cooled (1880-1910), warmed (1910-1940), cooled (1940-1977), warmed (1977-1998) and cooled (1998-present). Humans really started to emit carbon dioxide from 1940, and the two earlier warmings were at the same rate as the 1977-1998 warming.  Hence it has not been shown that there is a human influence on warming. At present, carbon dioxide emissions are increasing yet we are cooling.

8. The IPCC states that 97% of carbon dioxide emissions are natural and only 3% are human. It has not been scientifically shown how the 3% contribution can drive global warming when the 97% does not.

9. There is no science-based argument for CO2 being the dominant greenhouse gas; instead, CO2 is a minor greenhouse component whose effect is greatly overshadowed by that of water vapour.

10. To get carbon dioxide, a plant food, into perspective, for every one carbon dioxide molecule of human origin there are 32 of natural origin in a total of 88,000 other molecules. It has yet to be shown that this one molecule in 88,000 drives climate change and there is only information to the contrary because no past climate changes (which were larger and more rapid than anything we measure today) were driven by carbon dioxide, certainly not human induced, and what we measure today is within variability.

 ”Further you may wish to consider the scientist and mathematician, Dr David Evans view in an article titled “Evidence Speaks – It’s a Scam”, he has recently provided four other evidential tests against which global warming can be assessed, which have been independently confirmed by others.

The four key pieces of evidence that Evans presents, and the graphs which relate to each, are available here at (http://sciencespeak.com/evidence.pdf). They concern the complex computer climate models that provide the main basis for warming alarmism, and in summary are:”

1. That the climate models used by the United Nations (IPCC) to promote warming alarm are fundamentally flawed, and exaggerate measured atmospheric temperature increases.

2.That the climate models predict the oceans should be warming. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since 2003, using the ARGO system, and now 3,000 ARGO buoys patrol and measure ocean temperature constantly. They say that the ocean temperature since 2003 has been basically flat. Again, reality is very different to the climate models.

3.That the climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming, which is the presence of a so-called hotspot of warming at about 10 km height in the tropics. But we have been measuring atmospheric temperatures by weather balloons since the 1960s, and millions of weather balloon measurements show that there was no such hotspot during the last phase of warming between 1975 and 2001.

4. And, satellites are now able to measure the outgoing radiation from the earth, and have established that the earth gives off more heat when the surface is warmer, and less heat in months when the earth’s surface is cooler. But again the climate models say the opposite, and predict that the Earth will give off less heat when the surface is warmer.

“There’s talk that the government will subsidize this cost for some of us – look at what’s happening in Europe and USA where governments became too big, overstretched themselves and their expenditures, created extensive debt problems, with the obvious consequences of pressure to raise taxes, and, recession.  What happens in recession, the rich have less discretionary expenditure, but those who are most hurt by recession are those on limited fixed incomes, pensioners, those on low and low to middle incomes, those on middle incomes especially where only one adult is in the work force.”

And what of the future for Australia?

Here in the last city on Earth still-living-the-boom-days (Perth, West Australia) we are so used to the mining boom people forget that investors have the world to pick from. Gina warns the next boom has started, investors are already moving to Africa.

“Investors are already focusing on Africa, which has a great abundance of natural resources and offers a low-cost workforce, enabling the region to offer mineral resources at a more competitive price. Not just a few, but hundreds of Australian companies are investing in Africa instead of choosing to  invest these funds in Australia.” [View ANDEV’s website at http://www.andev-project.org]

*Jan 2009 corrected to Jan 2010.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (111 votes cast)
Influential people are getting the message: Gina Rinehart explains the science of climate change, 9.2 out of 10 based on 111 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/btchb2u

364 comments to Influential people are getting the message: Gina Rinehart explains the science of climate change

  • #
    Dave N

    The first 6 points overshadow the whole notion of runaway warming. Nobody has been able to point out why the present should be any different.

    Alarmists make the “irreversible” claim only to strike fear into the hearts of humans.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Chris G

      Hi Dave,

      Depends on what you mean by runaway. Runaway to a Venus-like state, umm, no, most climatologists are pretty sure that the sun is not hot enough for that where we are. You see it sometimes in blogs, etc, but not hardly in peer-reviewed papers. Runaway of, say, 6 C warming, sure, that is entirely possible. That is about the difference between the last glaciation and now. The orbital forcing alone is simply not large enough to account for the difference in ambient energy between then and now. (Look it up.) That would seem to seem to argue that feedbacks tend to be positive overall. Indeed, there is worry that the present will be very much like the past, say the PETM. You know, that time when lots of new species came into existence; what do you think happened to the species that had been there before?

      “Irreversable”? Over what time frame?
      How long did it take for reversals to take in the past?
      Was that longer that a human lifetime or two?
      If you bother to read for comprehension, “irreversible” is used in the context of human lifetimes, not forever.

      You are arguing against things that the scientists have not said.

      It’s curious that on this site you get rewarded with 45 likes and 0 dislikes for ignoring those inconvenient aspects.


      Report this

      02

      • #
        nano pope

        “Since thermometer measurements were first being taken the Earth has warmed (1860-1880), cooled (1880-1910), warmed (1910-1940), cooled (1940-1977), warmed (1977-1998) and cooled (1998-present)”

        Which of these reversals was the irreversable one? Surely not the most recent I would hope. Not that it matters, you are just reframing the argument to weasel out of the fact that the claim of irreversability is a lie. I would like to brush up on my reading comprehension though so I would be delighted if you could quote me something, anything to back up your argument that claims of irreversable climate change are only made in said context.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Chris G

          Well, here are a couple of examples to back up my claim.

          “This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. ”
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632717/

          “Namely, emissions of a greenhouse gas that has a long
          atmospheric residence time is a quasi-irreversible

          While you are at it, can you give the actual statistical significance of the “cooling” periods you reference?
          commitment to sustained radiative forcing over decades,
          centuries, or millennia, before natural processes can remove
          the quantities emitted.

          http://www.csun.edu/~hmc60533/CSUN_630E_S2004/climate%20change/climate_change_2001_tech_summary.pdf

          First couple of hits off of a Google Scholar search.

          Do you have any examples to back up your claim?


          Report this

          01

          • #

            Well, here are a couple of examples to back up my claim.

            “This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. ”
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632717/

            “Namely, emissions of a greenhouse gas that has a long
            atmospheric residence time is a quasi-irreversible

            That paper “shows” no such thing. The paper is a study of 22 climate MODELS.
            Now if it had “shown” data from say…vostok ice cores, it would be more credible.

            Your “irreversible for 1000 years” claim hits a snag when put in context with the 800 year lag (CO2 vs Temperatures).
            If the effects of CO2 lasted 1000 years, how is it that temperatures can head down whilst CO2 is still rising to its peak?
            Surely at some point in those Vostok graphs, CO2 MUST head down BEFORE temperatures, if your 1000 year conjecture was correct.

            Citing that Solomon paper has also exposed another problem re: melting ice in Antarctica.

            The supplementary material of the Solomon paper HERE has a Fig S4 which shows the expected change in precipitation per Deg change in Ts.
            Looking at the figure you will see a precipitation change of up to +15% for ANTARCTICA.

            You know what they say…”What Falls on Antarctica, Stays in Antarctica.”
            So how will there be “accelerated” melting with resultant catastrophic sea level rises if Antarctica will be locking away more H2O with rising Ts?

            “Customers, I’m in a dillemma”. (Bob Dyer, Pick a Box)


            Report this

            10

          • #

            While you are at it, can you give the actual statistical significance of the “cooling” periods you reference?

            Why? Who cares if the “lack of warming” is statistically significant or not.
            The fact remains that there is a claim that CO2 is rising year on year, this rise is causing warming because we’ve known CO2 causes warming since Arrhenius or some such relic.
            If the rise has stopped, it is up to the “thousands” of “consensus” scientists backed by virtually every government of this planet and every significant scientific institution and the many millions of dollars and vast resources at their beck n call to TELL US why the warming has stopped.

            With all those resources, all you’ve got is “eerrmmm we think it might possibly maybe due to Chinese aerosols, but we are not sure.” “we think it was the aerosols from WW2,” “We think it was the solar TSI but we’re sure it’s not TSI now.”

            That just ain’t gunna cut it pal. Statistically significant or not, the warming has ceased for an unknown period and your boffins have no firm ideas on why this is so.

            That tells us sceptics that your boffins do not know enough about the climate for us to agree to wholesale changes to our lives.


            Report this

            10

          • #

            commitment to sustained radiative forcing over decades,
            centuries, or millennia, before natural processes can remove
            the quantities emitted.”
            http://www.csun.edu/~hmc60533/CSUN_630E_S2004/climate%20change/climate_change_2001_tech_summary.pdf

            Oh brother. Do you actually read the documents you link to?

            The above link is to the IPCC TAR of 2001. THIS WAS THE REPORT HAPPY TO PUBLISH THE HOCKEYSTICK which was demoted by the subsequent report, the AR4.

            Now, all one needs to do is scroll down to page 8, look at and digest the contents of Fig 3, then proceed to use the document as kindling because the paper it was printed on is too hard and shiny to wipe my ar$e with.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Chris G

            Hey Humbug,
            Try to stay focused. The initial claim was that scientists say that the change is permanently irreversible, and I countered that they don’t say any such thing. I provided examples to support my counter, and your team has not.

            So, you guys are not willing to accept that there was warming between 1995 and 2009 because it barely failed the standard test for statistical significance, but you are willing to accept a cooling period from 1998 despite the fact that it fails that test by a long shot. I don’t think you understand statistics well enough to debate in this area.

            (The slight warming is well below the IPCC 2001 report’s projection for the first decade of the 21st century.Can you explain this apparent failure of the AGW hypothesis?) CTS


            Report this

            01

          • #

            Hey Gee

            I’ve had 3 substantive posts up for over 14 hours and all you can come back with is “try to stay focused”?

            No wonder I don’t bother as much as I used to with lightweight climate shonks like you.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Chris G

            You are not focusing.

            I provided evidence to back up my claim that you are finding fault with things that the scientists have not said, and you have gone off on tangents instead of providing any evidence supporting your claim that they have. That is not the way to have a rational discussion.

            Come on, I know you can come up with some quote from Trenberth, Hansen, Schneider, et al, where someone says that the change we are causing will never, ever be reversed. That’s all you have to do to prove me wrong on this point; let’s see it.

            Actually, your task is a little harder; since I have already shown quotes that say exactly what I claimed scientists say, it’ll be a matter of you providing more evidence than I can. That is, if evidence matters to you.

            Umm, please don’t bother pulling stuff out of your ass that you think is funny like you did the other time.

            BTW, why is it that statistical significance greater than 95% is required whenever a warmist makes a claim on trend, but that isn’t required when a (DELETED the D word) makes a similar claim?

            CTS


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Michael

            Chris, don’t bother – you are trying to convince someone who has already made up their mind. The readers on this site are interested in easily digestable content that aligns with their existing pre-conceptions, so no argument is possible.


            Report this

            00

  • #

    [...] Influential people are getting the message: Gina Rinehart explains the science of climate change Cover: Australian Resources and Investment Dec 2011 [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Juliar

    Why weren’t some of those other parts which you have now published not in the Australian Resources and Investment publication? They seem pretty important?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Influential people are getting the message….

    Sorry Catamon and John Brookes, it seems you are not influential !!

    :)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Catamon

      Sorry Catamon and John Brookes, it seems you are not influential !!

      Obviously. But considering the Carbon Price is now law, and the MRRT is through the HoR in the face of Gina R and Twiggy having been loudly cavorting on the back of a truck not so long ago, i can live with that BA.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    JO<

    i might be a bit pedantic here (not like me but I think that Anthony Kelly is "from" the University of Cambridge. While he is an inducted member of the Royal Society, that organisation is not his academic affiliation.

    —-
    REPLY: Thanks, fair point. I’ve reworded it. Cheers, Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Among the very few real economy builders are mining (for raw materials) and low cost energy (that would be coal, oil and gas). Very much too bad that all of these are under attack by the green/environmentalists. Just use your imagination to come up with the reason why……….


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Jay

      These economic systems are all well and good in the short term, but it is a fact that these will not last forever. Say they last for 100 years and in this time do not become too scarce to mine or drill cost effectively.. they will eventually be used up. There is also significant harm caused by certain forms of mining which contribute to other environmental problems.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Sure they’ll be “used up”! And what would you do then? I’d go looking for a new mine, you apparently would go live in a cave.

        I wonder where we’d be technology-wise if environmentalists stopped copper mining 100 years ago………


        Report this

        00

      • #
        nano pope

        Unless we eject it all into space it will in fact last forever. I’m confident humanity can adapt to what challenges us in 100 years time, and do it far better then than we can now. I agree about the environmental costs of mining and they should be and are considered and compensated for at least in Australia. We could do better I’m sure, but this is not what the latest tax is about, is it? It’s a pure greedy grab for a bigger slice of the already substantial pie so the government can pay for its incompetent economic mismanagement.

        What economic system do you propose as an alternative?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    It’s wonderful that we are moving from a stage when all politicians and business people had to mouth the mantra “of course we accept the science of climate change, but”.

    The next stage is, as here, to have these influential people clearly state the core issue:

    “that the man made proportion of Carbon dioxide in the air is not, never has been and never will be the driving force in the Earths atmospheric temperature fluctuations nor will it ever be the defining factor”.

    There is still a task of gigantic proportions and that is to counter the “schooling” of a whole generation of children, University students, politicians and media reporters in the Man made Global Warming through CO2 mantra.

    This is The Gordian Knot.

    I am encouraged, no end, by the British Court ruling on the scientific errors in “An Inconvenient Truth”.

    The final demise and humiliation of the Man Made Global Warming thing has to be large and dramatic to be effective.

    A Royal Commission would be a start but we need a really BIG event to turn the tide of misinformation and false belief.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      The phrases I liked most were in reference to past climatic changes as being “not irreversible”.

      It certainly takes the heat and urgency out of the problem.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      brc

      I think there are plenty of people educated by the system who gradually get their education into context – that is, it’s 12 years of state-sanctioned childcare with a bit of rote learning on the side. Many teachers try hard and work hard, but for each one of them, there is another going through the motions and not availing themselves of much critical thinking.

      Bright students and smart people don’t have too much trouble evaluating new evidence when it is presented to them. Global Warming belief is very shallow in most people – they haven’t thought about it, and are generally a bit fishy about the whole proposition, given that none of the predictions have come to pass. One or two good prime-time documentaries about the truth would make a lot of people realise how thin the evidence really is.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi brc

        There are a lot of intelligent, educated, nice , well meaning people out there who absolutely know that MMAGW is REAL.

        They have given their hearts to this moral issue to save the planet.

        There is an old saying in science: “an object remains at rest or in a state of uniform motion unless acted on by some external force”.

        People’s minds are no different.

        They will not accept reality unless something catastrophic happens.

        A large , catastrophic event is needed to bring rapid public moves in climate reality.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Catamon

          Watch it KK.

          If you say:

          They will not accept reality unless something catastrophic happens.

          A large , catastrophic event is needed to bring rapid public moves in climate reality.

          Someone may misquote you as having said something like:

          “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen”

          Could happen you know??


          Report this

          00

          • #
            BobC

            Catamon
            December 7, 2011 at 7:23 pm

            Watch it KK.

            Someone may misquote you as having said something like:

            “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen”

            Not to worry, Catamon. We are all familiar with Aesop’s fables (unlike Climate Scientists, and the people who still believe them).

            Funny, your potential “misquote” above is pretty close to a direct quote from one of the principle architects of the CAGW scare, Stephen Schneider. When he made that statement, he worked at NCAR. My wife, who also worked there, reminded him of “The Boy who Cried Wolf”. Dr. Schneider was not thrilled that a mere programmer was questioning his judgement and ethics.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          brc

          It’s not the zealots that you have to worry about. They’ll take their beliefs to the grave.

          It’s the huge swathe of voters out there who don’t really care either way, but currently would probably say ‘sure, I believe it’ mainly because it’s currently ‘in style’ to agree and to pretend you feel guilt about having a modern lifestyle.

          It’s these people who will decide the issue, because they’ll decide the next election.

          There doesn’t need to be a big event, just a lot of little niggling doubts, and one or two well presented stories/movies/documentaries/news reports that will coalesce these niggling doubts into outright rejection of the scare. Currently the scare lives on ‘but what if it’s true’. Put this little bit of doubt to the sword and nobody will believe anymore, except for the zealots.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          We need a Royal Commission into the Climate Change industry to inform the public of the science and to show them where all the money has gone.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Fred

    I think that only if the once-predicted next overdue Ice Age began, complete with rapidly dropping temperatures, would it wake up the world to the propaganda coming from the Warmists on their gravy train. Otherwise the gullible non-scientific public will believe the lies for a very long time because they come from “experts”.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      jl

      I think the spin-merchants have already shifted to plan ‘B’. How long since you have heard the term “global warming” used by the MSM, governments, or those with a snout in the trough? Its all “climate change” and “clean energy future”. So no matter what the weather does, it will still be caused by you and me, and must be fixed.
      Sometime soon I hope to hear the ABC describe the weather as being “abnormally normal”! Then I will know its finally game-over.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Marry me Gina! (hang on that would be bigamy).

    On the serious side, a smart journalist (an oxymoron?) in a media organization where Gina sits on the board would (should) consider very carefully their mindless parroting of the UEA idiocy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    While I think it’s great that Gina Rinehart has published this – I can only just imagine what the true believers will make of her speaking out like this, given she is already public enemy number 1 for the greens and their fellow travellers.

    It’s quite understandable for mining people to speak the truth – lies, fallacies and make-believe don’t get many minerals dug up – when finance people and politicians start to speak like this then I’ll know we’re getting somewhere.

    A lot of true believers wonder why it is that mining people often find fault with climate alarmism. They erroneously think it’s because of some type of funding corruption, but in reality it’s simpler than that. But mining is one of the few industries around where speaking BS gets you nowhere. Either you find the minerals and mine them, or you go broke. There’s just no room for waffling, fudging the numbers and trying to put one over your customers. The likes of Steve McIntyre don’t believe in fake statistics because believing fake statistics loses you a lot of money. While there are whole cadres of people who love nothing better than to conjure up stories using numbers – as long as the right story is being told.

    Call it a rule – the further you get from the hard sciences and industries, the more likely you are to believe in man-made global warming.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      when [business executives,] finance people and politicians start to speak like this then I’ll know we’re getting somewhere.

      Yup, we suddenly find ourselves to be very busy as our clients all want an update for their 2012 strategic plans before the Christmas break. What they want to know, is what the effects of a lack of climate change will be.

      Short answer: “Well none, really. Because there is this tax, which doesn’t have any exit provisions, and that tax is now in place irrespective of what the climate may, or may not do … it is political, you see.”

      The future does not look bright for Labour and the Greens. There is big money on the table over this, and less of it is likely to go their way from now on.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    When Ms Rinehart’s iron ore was laid down there was more CO2 than oxygen in the atmosphere, and if you swam in the ocean it’d eat your skin off in 5 minutes. Ocean acidification hah…try swimming in an ocean of ferrous chloride and hydrochloric acid 2 billion years ago. Ah, those were the days!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      But it was all natural, reversible and not catastrophic…


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rohan Baker

        John, human emmisions from burning fossil fuels tick 2 out of three of your points of seas full of HCl and FeCl2.

        So who, how, what and were exactly is the problem with a little extra human generated CO2 (and that other darstedly greenhouse gas that comes from burning all carbon based fossil fuels, H2O)?

        I think you’ve backed youself into a tight little corner there.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    MattB

    Claim “Point 1: The atmosphere currently has <0.04% CO2, in former times it was up to 30%. Six of the six great ice ages formed at a time when atmospheric carbon dioxide was far higher than now. Clearly, this did not drive warming."

    Response – For 650,000 years CO2 levels have been between say 200 and 300 ppm.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/

    Response – even going back 600 million years CO2 levels maxed at about 7000ppm. Ok that is 25 times more than today, but that still only takes it to 1%.

    Could someone please let me know when CO2 levels were 30% of the atmosphere, and also let me know why it matters if we are talking a billion years ago?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MattB

      So essentially point 1 is smoke and mirrors hogwash. [snip ad hom. Actually the company she inherited was deeply in debt to the point of almost being in bankruptcy.]


      Report this

      00

    • #
      handjive

      “Could someone please let me know when CO2 levels were 30% of the atmosphere…”

      Google is your friend.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        RogerL

        Google is my friend. Google can’t find any references to CO2 levels being 30% of the atmosphere. Nor can it find any evidence to support any other of Gina’s so called evidence. This paper is complete rubbish.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    MattB

    Point 2: “For 80% of past geological time, planet Earth has been warmer than today, with far more CO2 in the atmosphere. Clearly, this warming was neither irreversible nor catastrophic.”\

    Response. Hmm well humans only evolved lets say 2.5 million years ago…. and over the period that Gina refers to pretty much everything that ever lived became extinct at one time or another. I’m like to know how mych of this “80% of Geological time” Gina would have liked to be heading down to Claremont Quarter to do her shopping?

    Again – this is a meaningless, although accurate, point.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      brc

      No, the point was it’s not irreversible. The alarmists like to quote ‘catastrophic irreversible climate change’. As in – once it’s changed, it’s never changing back.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MattB

        irreversible and catastrophic to wipe out life on the planet. That’s catastrophic enough to me. In context… catastrophic means really bad for us, and irreversible means there is nothing we can do to reverse it. Of course the major cycles may well cool us again, but that is hardly a soothing thought is it?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Grant (NZ)

          Nothing we can do to reverse it, and when we are only responsible for 3% of the 400ppm there is stuff all we are doing to cause it anyway. It’s mostly natural.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Chris G

            Let’s see…

            Pre-industrial CO2 was ~290 ppm.
            Today it is about 390 ppm.
            Isotopic analysis confirms the extra came from fossil fuels.

            (390 – 290) / 390 = 25%

            I get 25% of the CO2 in the air is a result of what we are doing. What math did you use?


            Report this

            00

        • #
          J.H.

          MattB….

          irreversible and catastrophic to wipe out life on the planet. That’s catastrophic enough to me.

          ….calm down mate, yer gettin hysterical. One extra CO2 molecule in eighty thousand molecules of air, as Gina pointed out…. and you’re hyperventilatin’ an’ pooin’ yer pants. :-)

          Had any luck finding that you beaut fingerprint of Anthropogenic Global Warming yet Matt? Th’ one that the model boffin’s conjured forth….? The amazing confabulous disappearing Tropical Tropospheric hotspot….

          Tell me Matt. If a Hypothesis falls over in the forest and everyone sees it…. does it make a sound? ;-)


          Report this

          00

        • #
          brc

          Indeed. There are many things that can wipe life off the planet.

          There’s also the subtle point here that nothing mankind has done will cause this, and nothing mankind can do to prevent it.

          Especially a stupid carbon tax.

          Climates going to do what climates going to do. Always has, always will.

          Honestly, the arrogance and lack of humility in the face of forces of nature to think that humans have some type of planetary thermostat by taxing their daily activities.

          You don’t really subscribe to the theory that taxes can change the climate, do you MattB?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Streetcred

          That’s how the CAGW sycophants scare the bejesus out of you … it’s all driven by terrifying you J.H.

          Now take a paper bag and place it over your nose and mouth. Breathe in, breathe out … keep going. Ok, feel better now? CO2 works wonders.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    MattB

    Point 3: At times in the past (Carboniferous, Cretaceous, Eocene) the Earth experienced sudden injections of CO2 into the atmosphere. In response, the planet warmed slightly but less than daily changes we experience now and not in an irreversible or catastrophic way.

    lol WTF does “less than daily changes we experience now”. Wow so less than say 30degrees C! 30 degrees…. oh ok it was less than 30 degrees so what’s the problem. Seriously that is f$&kin hilarious that is.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      brc

      The point is when the climate changes, it’s not catastrophic or irreversible.

      The point is that even with rapid rises in co2, the amount of warming you get is only minor.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    MattB

    Point 4: Ice cores from Antarctica show that atmospheric CO2 increases around 800 years after natural events of warming i.e. natural warming drives carbon dioxide emissions, not the inverse.

    The lag is well explained. Something else caused the warming, a consequence is CO2 released, which in turn warms. My point does not prove AGW, but Gina’s point is absolute crap.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Point 5: Over the last 120,000 years, there have been 25 periods of warming where temperature rose by up to 8 deg C. These were not driven by human emissions, were natural and were neither irreversible nor catastrophic.

    Could someone give a reference to this? I’ve never heard of 25 periods os 8C warming in the last 125,000 years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      I think you’ll find, MattB, that on these 25 occasions, Gina did check the thermometer in the morning, and then again in the afternoon, and find an increase of more than 8 degrees. These changes were natural, reversible and not catastrophic.

      You have to admit that Gina has a point there ;-)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    MattB

    Point 6: Sea level rose 130 metres between 12,000 and 6,000 years ago and temperatures were at a maximum 6,000 years ago. For the last 6,000 years we have been cooling with intermittent warm periods (Minoan, Roman, Medieval, Modern). In the first three warming periods, it was far warmer than now, sea level did not rise and such warmings clearly were not a result of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases. The Modern Warming commenced 300 years ago. It has not been demonstrated which part of this warming is natural and which part is of human origin, and since 1998 the Earth has been cooling despite a rapid rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    Is there any reference for minoan, roman and MWP being “far warmer than now”.
    Cooling since 1998 is crap.
    “such warmings clearly were not a result of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases” who says they were?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Matty

      The problem for the warmers in relation to CO2 is that 3% of some thing is 3%.

      Its not 100 %.

      Man made CO2 is responsible for 3% of 5% of the radiative component of the “greenhouse” effect.

      So IF the CO2 mechanism is the only heating mechanism ( not necessarily true) for the period 1850 to 2000 and we agree that world temps have increased by 0.6 C degrees ( not necessarily true) then the man made component of that 0.6 deg increase is listed below.

      It is 0.0009 C degrees.

      I will accept full responsibility for this huge amount of overheating my grandparents caused.

      CAN YOU FEEL THE HEAT MATTY?

      That is the real, scientific analysis done by an engineer rather than an Environmental Scientist with no science training.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MattB

        You seriously have no idea what you are talking about do you?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Sorry Matty

          95% of the green house radiation analysis is Water Vapour.

          My analysis does not include the other major factors like, orbital considerations (the sun), ocean heat flux, clouds, energy sequestration through photosynthesis, bio sequestration in soil (microbial) and so on and so on.

          We are not even responsible for that 0.0009 C when all the real factors are considered.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          As an engineer I feel quite proud to have quantified the extent of MMAGW via CO2 using only a piece of paper and pen. Total Cost $1.25.

          The standard “Model” of climate confusion prediction at most “Climate Change” faculties is done on computers which cost $50,000.

          The idea that a bigger computer will give a more accurate result to CO2 and AGW predictions is just junk science.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Catamon

            As an engineer I feel quite proud to have quantified the extent of MMAGW via CO2 using only a piece of paper and pen. Total Cost $1.25.

            You know KK, i’m sure there will be an opening for you in costing the Coalitions 2013 election platform.

            They tried accountants last time as more competent than Treasury, but the ones they used have been busted over it, so maybe they will go to engineers next??


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Streetcred

            And so catamon, just where are those famous ‘models’ developed by “Treasury” ? They’re too petrified to release them because they know that they are BS. I feel sorry for the Treasury employees … the cognitive dissonance must be extreme catastrophic and irreversible … release the TRUTH and face unemployment.


            Report this

            00

    • #

      The greenland ice cores show those warming periods clearly. No one seriously argues that the holocene was not warmer than today. (See 6144 boreholes Huang and pollack 1997).

      http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

      http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/gullible-rudd-steps-right-in-it/


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MattB

        the quite from Gina is “FAR WARMER THAN TODAY” in all three of minoan, roman and medieval… You reference to it possibly being slightly warmer in the holocene backs me up. Thanks.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          and seriously sorry for the typos today!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          MattB

          I just realised you are referring back to that dodgy polynomial fit to that greenland core, which is just one core, in Greenland. I of course am referring to genuine reconstructions of the global temp.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            brc

            I hope those genuine reconstructions don’t use weird and wonderful statistical techniques that output sticks that you play hockey with.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            So someone has a time machine and has gone back and measured temperatures everywhere in the world at all levels of the atmosphere with the same device (to avoid calibration errors). Man! I hope they recorded the CO2 concentration at the same place at the same time, because that time series will be so valuable.

            Now that is a reconstruction.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Grant

            You’ve got it nailed!

            Fitting together sets of data derived from different locations using different measuring techniques is a dogs breakfast and only useful to salesmen, not scientists.


            Report this

            00

        • #

          Not so. Matt. Check out those links. The Greenland cores clearly show the Roman, Minoan, and Midieval Warm Period.

          The boreholes estimate is that the MWP was either 0.5C or 1.0C or 1.5C warmer. Hundreds of studies on every continent (bar Australia) show it was warmer. The post I linked too on the Roman period likewise shows evidence it was global.

          Show me the studies that greenland is not a good representation of global temperatures.

          The holocene was warmer than all of them. Find me a single climate model that hindcasts those warming periods.

          Exactly. Apology accepted.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        RogerL

        Neither of these presentations actually have data from the last 100 years. So they are not especially relevant to the current situation. Further more the GISP data comes from the extreme where all the models predict much greater variation in temperature. Note that the temperatures displayed are more than minus 30 degrees. This interpretation of the graph is also the only ‘evidence’ for the so called minoan and roman warming periods which can be seen from your second reference to be totally non existence. I consider the second reference to be an excellent demonstration that the MWP was virtually non existent as each occurrence of it in the various graphs occurs at different times.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          RogerL,

          Antarctica ice core data also shows the MWP,Minoan and Roman warm periods.

          2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present

          Latest Research Disproves IPCC’s Climategate Hockey-Stick: Antarctica Was Warmer During Medieval Period

          Vostok, Antarctica Current Temperatures Still Significantly Below Roman & Medieval Peaks

          Charts in all three links.

          This interpretation of the graph is also the only ‘evidence’ for the so called minoan and roman warming periods which can be seen from your second reference to be totally non existence. I consider the second reference to be an excellent demonstration that the MWP was virtually non existent as each occurrence of it in the various graphs occurs at different times.

          Are you sure about that?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            rogerL

            Of course your interpretation of the MWP as occurring in a very narrow time frame is consistent with other claims that short periods of localized warming are equivalent to wide spread global warming . Your graph shows the ‘Minoan warming period’ as occurring about 1000 yrs later than Jo’s. If you can work out when it supposedly happened we can have a serious discussion. While you claim that any local warming between 2000 and 4ooo BC constitutes a ‘Minoan’ warming, or any warming between 1000 BC and 1000 Ad constitutes a ‘Roman’ warming we have little to debate.
            When you can agree on when these ‘ global’ events occurred we can start having a serious discussion. Until then you are talking bollocks.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Roger L,

            Bollocks huh?

            First of all you stated this:

            This interpretation of the graph is also the only ‘evidence’ for the so called minoan and roman warming periods which can be seen from your second reference to be totally non existence. I consider the second reference to be an excellent demonstration that the MWP was virtually non existent as each occurrence of it in the various graphs occurs at different times.

            Then I posted three links to show that Antarctica also has evidence of the warm periods in the ice cores.Then you come back to try deflecting with a new tack.

            Of course your interpretation of the MWP as occurring in a very narrow time frame is consistent with other claims that short periods of localized warming are equivalent to wide spread global warming.

            I showed that you are wrong.Both polar regions shows the same warm periods from the ice cores.Why not accept the fact?

            Jo also pointed out other evidence of the warm periods.Go to this link for numerous science supported evidence of those warm periods you are irrationally resisting:

            LINK

            That was only a sampling of many more.

            You are the one who is fighting published research.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      hum

      Yup Mattie read your history books. In the RWP Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants and attacked Rome. As the mountain glaciers recede today we are finding dwellings, mines, farms, etc under the glacier that are dated to the previous warm periods.

      Okay, maybe Lord Monckton and Steve McIntyre dug through the glacier a few years ago and planted the evidence and dug the mine just to fabricate that the past was warmer.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    The comment “It’s quite understandable for mining people to speak the truth” only relates to Gina.

    Just a few months back we had the major miners commenting that they “believed” in the science behind Global Warming. BHP and RIO are NOT politically naive.

    If you have to “believe” to get the concessions, then you will believe, to help out the Government and of course they will help you in return.

    Remember how BHP and Rio were put in charge of the MMRRT and the little moners got dudded?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Catamon

    Having read Gina R’s linked article, well, no surprises there.

    On the scientific points she’s regurgitating the standard catechism so i can see where it goes down generally well here.

    On her economic points though, where people in her position get off with this kind of rent seeking give me more handout behavior so i can make bigger profits and maybe i’ll chose to sprinkle some upon the unwashed masses always amazes. So as far as i’m concerned we should tax her till she squeals. Oh wait, she has been……


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Going hoarse yelling on the back of a ute she was! Screaming about ruination if some pesky mining tax stopped her accumulating wealth at the speed to which she has become accustomed. Its a shame she wasn’t a bit more sceptical about her own claims about the mining tax. It makes her look self serving and hypocritical. Hey, wait a minute…


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Catamon, explain where the rent-seeking part is? The real rent seekers are the ones asking for my money to pander to their baseless fears?

      Rinehart wants the government to get out of the way.

      As far as the MMRT goes, she’s not one of the big three players who did deals with the government to help big-players grow at the expense of the other players.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Catamon

        Yet she want to have things like subsidies maintained, more infrastructure where its most wanted for development of resources she controls, cheap labor from overseas, less regulation.

        Yup, “Rinehart wants the government to get out of the way.”

        Which is pretty much the catch cry of the [snip... he means highly popular, "Tea Party"], and look at where thats taking the US??

        As far as the MMRT goes, she’s not one of the big three players who did deals with the government to help big-players grow at the expense of the other players.

        So, she’s not that influential then? I can live with that.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Oh just where are the “[tea party] taking US? You’d like the government IN the way? Stupid

          What the tea party people are really saying is “stick to principles (constitutionality), smaller less expensive government and balanced budgets. I suppose you have a problem with those tenets? Maybe you denigrate tea party people because they are having a much needed effect on politicians.

          He he so sad for you.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Catamon

            Oh just where are the [Tea Party] taking US? You’d like the government IN the way? Stupid

            They are a major blot on the American body politic. I know many Americans who are intelligent, thoughtful and damn good company. The [Tea Party] seem to me to be ignorant, nasty, paranoid, and remarkable stupid.

            Their influence on the [Republicans] is really dangerous. Particularly as regards budget matters. Their economically illiterate stance on balancing the budget by spending cuts while refusing any tax increases is just silly and could have major consequences for people outside the US.

            What the tea party people are really saying is “stick to principles (constitutionality), smaller less expensive government and balanced budgets. I suppose you have a problem with those tenets?

            Constitutionality where its not outdated and destructive (like the right to arm bears :) ) is great, smaller less expensive govt sounds good, provided there is enough govt to actually do its job, and balanced budgets are a great aspirational target, but in general surpluses when you can and deficits when you have to actually works better i think.

            —–REPLY: Yes, we too think that Catamon the anonymous coward has more wisdom than than Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington. /sarc


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            You do take every opportunity to be wrong don’t you? Stop believing the news stories, or maybe just stick to tying to understand your own stupid AU politics eh?

            I know many Americans who are intelligent, thoughtful and damn good company.

            Why thank you! And but for you, mattb and Brookes, I’d say all of the Aussies (and Kiwis) I know are intelligent, thoughtful and damn good company

            The [Tea Party] seem to me to be ignorant, nasty, paranoid, and remarkable stupid.

            perhaps you should stop projecting…..

            Their economically illiterate stance on balancing the budget by spending cuts while refusing any tax increases is just silly and could have major consequences for people outside the US

            .

            It is the only way to reduce the bloat. Your notion that increasing taxes will come with responsible spending has been tried and failed before not just here in the US but all over Europe. To think it suddenly will work is incredibly naive. As for the “outside consequences” without you being specific I’d say you’re scaremongering. Bugger off.

            Constitutionality where its not outdated and destructive (like the right to arm bears :) ) is great,

            Hold on there! Much too important to let that run-on sentence stand. You are in dangerous waters here, but oddly demonstrating my point about the Tea Party. You really are scared aren’t you? You don’t like populist movements that stand on and re-enforce strong principles do you? HA! Leftists are always on about “outdated principles”. More stupid from you.

            smaller less expensive govt sounds good, provided there is enough govt to actually do its job,

            Oh sure talk about sounding good. What exactly is “its job”?

            and balanced budgets are a great aspirational target, but in general surpluses when you can and deficits when you have to actually works better i think.

            Yes they work remarkably well! Lets look at Spain, Italy, Greece, most of europe……….. Remarkable! Thatcher: “Socialism works well until you run out of other peoples money.”

            So in a nutshell you don’t like Tea Party people because they attack and point out your socialist failures? Too bad for you, we in the US don’t like socialists very much.

            P.S. That is also why we like to keep and bear arms. It tends to make socialists nervous.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Catamon

            You are in dangerous waters here,

            Stop talking twaddle. This is the internet, idiots with guns dont count here.

            You don’t like populist movements that stand on and re-enforce strong principles do you?

            Not when the one of the populist principles they support is the right for any dangerous idiot with the cash to keep automatic weapons.

            As for the “outside consequences” without you being specific I’d say you’re scaremongering.

            By outside consequences i’m referring to the possibility of the US defaulting on its Treasury Bills. That would be pretty serious.

            It is the only way to reduce the bloat.

            Thank you for demonstrating my point as to the economic illiteracy so prevalent in the US at the moment. Its actually not. The objective is to balance the budget without bringing the economy to a grinding halt right?

            Funnily enough a budget has two primary components, revenue and expenditure. Those need to be balanced, and to do that, responsible govt’s will adjust both when they frame their budget.

            Always cutting/raising taxes, or always cutting/raising expenditure is silly. Extremes in either way don’t work. Primarily the US at least needs to show willing to tax their high income earners and dump some of the unsustainable tax cuts of the Bush era if their policy makers want to reclaim any economic credibility. That seems difficult though with the unsustainable populist stance the Teabaggers are pushing on the Repugs.

            Similar but not so big problem here in Oz. The structural deficit left over from the Howard years middle class welfare vote buying push is politically VERY hard to fix, but at least we don’t have Teabagger populist morons setting our conservative parties policy…..much……yet…. oh dog, yes, we do have our own economic illiterates here, but luckily they occupy the opposition benches till at least late 2013.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Catamon claims that the right to bear arms is “outdated and destructive”.

            Typical leftist argument, based on their fantasy world (you know, the one in which Socialism wasn’t responsible for 100,000,000 deaths in the 20th century).

            Actual studies on the effects of liberalizing (in the classic sense of the word) gun laws to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, show that the violent crime rate drops in nearly every case, and there is no crime problem associated with law-abiding citizens possessing arms (not a surprise if you think logically). In the meantime, the experiments with gun prohibition in Great Britain (and now Australia) have coincided with a surge in violent crime.

            But, the right to keep and bear arms in the US Constitution is not there for personal protection against crime (which the Founders would have considered a “natural right”) — it is there to provide protection against out of control government. In recent history, there has been a number of genocides — virtually all of them were preceeded by confiscation of firearms from the targeted population. (Apparently, tyrants aren’t as stupid about this as the Left’s “useful idiots”.)

            Catamon seems to have a preference for arguments based on fantasies — probably why he is an AGW apologist.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Catamon says:

            Not when the one of the populist principles they support is the right for any dangerous idiot with the cash to keep automatic weapons.

            Thereby he gives yet another glaring example of his/her ignorance or ability to produce an outright lie. Which one is it Cat?

            Then it says:

            The objective is to balance the budget without bringing the economy to a grinding halt right?

            Frankly, I think there is ample evidence that Congress does not know how to do either. We already have an economy that has “ground to a halt” at the same time as unprecedented government spending. Your economic theory fails. I could try to educate you on why this is the case but I’m pretty sure you’d deny the information I’ll give you one thought though; we are at a stand still because small and medium size business have no confidence in Obama or in Congress. If you paid attention you’d know that is why Tea Party people were elected last cycle and more will be in 2012.

            More Cat:

            By outside consequences i’m referring to the possibility of the US defaulting on its Treasury Bills. That would be pretty serious.

            Besides the obvious scaremongering why do you think spending more (which requires more borrowing) will solve this red herring? Stupid really.

            Finally,

            Extremes in either way don’t work. Primarily the US at least needs to show willing to tax their high income earners and dump some of the unsustainable tax cuts of the Bush era if their policy makers want to reclaim any economic credibility. That seems difficult though with the unsustainable populist stance the Teabaggers are pushing on the Repugs.

            Yes more taxes and more spending, then call that credible. You’re EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. Make my point again then finish with a couple ad-homs


            Report this

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Catamon
            December 8, 2011 at 1:01 am

            …at least we don’t have Teabagger populist morons setting our conservative parties policy…

            Catamon descends into homophobic slander — what “surprisement”.

            (But, not inconsistent with his general “logic”.)

            [link snipped]


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            Bobby reveals he doesn’t know what the term teabagging means.

            [link snipped]


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            This video will be my next example for tax and spend leftists like Catamon (and to be fair there have been many others).

            You see earlier he suggests that the USA needs to raise taxes, permitting government to keep spending, so as to keep the “economy from grinding to a stop.

            Catamon says: Primarily the US at least needs to show willing to tax their high income earners and dump some of the unsustainable tax cuts of the Bush era if their policy makers want to reclaim any economic credibility.

            Take the time to watch this video to learn just how big the US spending is: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=JY8LKII_MNA&feature=youtube_gdata_player


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Were I Australian about now I’d leave off the snide remarks about the Tea Party and start trying to figure out how to grow one of my own. You need it badly!

          But wisdom is justified of all her children.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            J.H.

            Aussie politics are different to American politics Roy…. Not so much cause for big populist movements or large shows of people power….We only need the facts presented in an accessible way… With our compulsory voting system the day at the election box becomes the people power day. We all have to turn up, so engaging people in the process, is not so necessary as in America.

            Despite what the Media elites, leftist academics and Global Socialists would have us all believe… people are not stupid.

            Voters in a modern democracy are not uninformed. They may be misinformed, but because they are not stupid people, they can see and hear the political pantomime being played, and they will vote according to their value sets.

            In Australia at the next election the Labor party is set for an historical defeat. The polling continues to show this…. The Greens in this current period have corrupted the Labor party and influenced the elite of the Labor party. It would be surprising to know just how many Labor elite’s now actually support the Greens and their inner suburban voter base?…. However, the general Labor voter and pro Labor businesses are now in the process of abandoning them for the Liberal party….

            Money, support, membership is leaving the Labor party in droves. Without the public sector Unions, Labor would already be a footnote in history…

            Why is this happening to Labor?… For the simple reason that John Howard and the Coalition attracted Labor voters away last time, those lost Labor ex voters became known as “the Howard working class battlers”, the Liberal party now supports the ideals of what most Labor party voters hold dear. Jobs, lower costs of living, secure borders, marriage as an institution founded on tradition, truthfulness from elected representatives…. and much more…. While Labor is attracting inner city socialist elites and ecofascist extremist academics. Powerful minority groups indeed…. But the operative word here is “Minority”…. You can’t win elections with minorities. You can if you Lie. Thus Gillard’s infamous promise last election…. “There will be no Carbon Tax under a Government I lead.”…. But lying so blatantly exacts a very high political price in a Democracy such as ours with Compulsory Voting, the voters really don’t have to think too hard when casting their votes next time round with that constant reminder being played at every opportunity.

            In the coming years, Labor MP’s may very well have to schism from it’s radical Marxists and Ecofascist leftists, an amputation so to speak, so that it may save a hundred years of political tradition. In doing so, Labor will consign itself to perhaps four or five terms in the political wilderness of opposition once again….. The Greens will wither in that time… and thus the lessons will be hard learned.

            It’s going to be to be an interesting couple of years here…. and globally too.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            JH thank you for that treatise on AU politics it helps me understand better. I imagine your system causes lots of “water cooler” and pub discussion!


            Report this

            00

    • #
      brc

      Rent seeking is seeking to have regulations passed that enforce or build monopolies.

      Rent seeking is windmill and solar sellers wishing to have laws passed that mandate their products.

      Wishing to develop a minerals export industry that brings in taxes and royalties and creates jobs and wealth is the exact opposite of rent seeking.

      If you need to try and visualise what the MMRT does – try and think of a couple of new mining companies that were going to be created over the next 20-30 years. Now visualise all the employees, shareholders and others that were going to be supported by those new mining companes.

      Now mentally erase all those investments, infrastructure, tax dollars and employees, and redraw them in another country.

      Idiots like you believe that because the existing companies don’t disappear, the tax has no effect. But in reality it’s the unforeseen consequences that are the most damaging. A whole raft of future projects will now not exist.

      People who support these taxes seem to think Austarlia is the only one with these minerals, or that it’s a simple operation to set up and extract them. Nothing could be further from the truth.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    MattB

    Point 7: Since thermometer measurements were first being taken the Earth has warmed (1860-1880), cooled (1880-1910), warmed (1910-1940), cooled (1940-1977), warmed (1977-1998) and cooled (1998-present). Humans really started to emit carbon dioxide from 1940, and the two earlier warmings were at the same rate as the 1977-1998 warming. Hence it has not been shown that there is a human influence on warming. At present, carbon dioxide emissions are increasing yet we are cooling.

    Here is the remperature record of the period discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg
    so an increase of about 0.8C. Pretty clear.

    Also emissions started WAY before 1950 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev.png

    Also warming is logarithmic response, so you’d not expect faster warming just because emissions were faster.

    Another junk point.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Oh come on MattB, you are just nitpicking here. Can’t you see the epicycles of temperature? Its all done by clockwork – you just wind it up and let it run, and the temperature goes up and down in predictable cycles that many fools think they see…


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Matt you missed her point. There have been multiple rising and cooling trends, none of which correlates well with our CO2 emissions. She didn’t ask for an exponential warming trend, just for a warming trend. Over the last 15 years any “significant” trend is so weak it comes and goes depending on the start and end months. See the recent ARGO ocean post and the missing quadrillion joules of energy for the killer data.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MattB

        I thought we all knew there were short term “natural” variables that can have a cooling impact… 1880-1910, 1940-1970 etc. but the clear trend on top of that is warming.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          warcroft

          1880-1910 30 years cooling
          1910-1940 30 years heating
          1940-1970 30 years cooling (remember the “mini ice age” headlines?)
          1970-2000 30 years heating (global warming then climate change)
          2000-2030 30 years cooling (they do say “it has actually been cooling the last ten years”)

          Yep MattB. Your dates look pretty normal to me.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          BobC

          MattB
          December 7, 2011 at 7:29 pm · Reply
          I thought we all knew there were short term “natural” variables that can have a cooling impact… 1880-1910, 1940-1970 etc. but the clear trend on top of that is warming.

          It all depends on the time period you (cherry) pick: This plot from NOAA’s GISP2 ice core at the summit of Greenland’s ice cap clearly shows (for the last 3000 years): “Short term variability, but with a clear cooling trend on top”.

          (This would be true if we picked the last 1000 years or the last 8000 years as well.)

          More to the point: None of this demonstrates anything caused by CO2 — anthropogenic or otherwise.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        cementafriend

        Jo, I think you are too kind to let MattB, John Brooks etc to continuously try to provoke a response.
        They obviously have no understanding and do not want to understand. I saw on another blog sometime ago that (Dr?? ) Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate was asked about the Schmidt number. He clearly had to look it up at Wikipedia and then admitted he did not know its relation to atmospheric studies. If the organisers of Real Climate do not understand the basics of heat and mass transfer and fluid dynamics, you can not expect the followers of Real Climate to know anything.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      BobC

      So MattB — you show us the “temperature record” according to the CRU and Hadley center. Find out more about the quality of this data by perusing the “ReadMeHarry” file from ClimateGate I.

      It has all the credibility of the “Hockey Stick”.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Interesting.

    Nary a peep out of the Al Goracle groupies (except for JB who doesn’t count) through two weeks of, first the IPCC backpedalling, and then Climategate 2, then the non-event at Durban, and suddenly, today, we have them back out in strength.

    Has John Cook over at Septic Science issued a new hymn book?
    Or maybe Gavin at Unreal Climate has come up with yet another version of the Mann-Made Warming Gospel?

    Did Trenberth find his travesty hiding under a rock at Nuuk Airport?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Point 8: The IPCC states that 97% of carbon dioxide emissions are natural and only 3% are human. It has not been scientifically shown how the 3% contribution can drive global warming when the 97% does not.

    crock. 97% go the other way too in the carbon cycle… the 3% is the key as it causes the increase. Did gina drop out in year 10 and not study the carbon cycle or something?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      She’s preaching to the converted Matt, so it doesn’t have to make sense.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Mattb, we’ve gone through this on the Murry Salby post, there are many reasons to doubt the IPCC litany that all the rise in CO2 is due to the man-made emissions. You know the seasonal cycle produces higher swings than our contribution, and we know that year on year changes reflect the global temperature changes, not our emissions.
      Gina is absolutely correct in what she says. Wheres THAT paper that shows that rising cO2 (even if we assume it’s all “ours”) causes more than 1.2 degrees. You’ve had nearly two years to find it.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      MattB, you are a numbskull! Co2 is CO2.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    MattB

    Point 9:There is no science-based argument for CO2 being the dominant greenhouse gas; instead, CO2 is a minor greenhouse component whose effect is greatly overshadowed by that of water vapour.

    Of course there is. Read the IPCC, it is a clear science-based argument. Car more so than this non-science point of Gina’s. circa 1 deg C per doubling pus feedbacks – I thought we were all in agreement with that?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Quote IPCC, AR4, Chapter 8 page 632. “Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.”

      The IPCC quietly agree with Gina.

      Do you want to give up now Matt?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MattB

        Oh ok I “assumed” she meant dominant gas responsible for greenhouse warming. if her argument is that water vapour warms more than CO2 at present then she is right, but it is a nothing argument. Meaningless. “That bullet’s not even the heavies thing in his head officer, how could it have killed him.”

        Jo the other day you accused my of defending the indefensible. Not it is your turn. Even that UAE academic hero would fail this effort form Gina.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          as in the recent, anthropogenic, warming trend. I mean even the feedbacks acknowledge this. It is a nuffy point.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          brc

          “Read the IPCC, it is a clear science-based argument.”

          Which science-based argument would that be? Remember, you’re looking for a ‘clear science based argument’ that shows co2 is the dominant greenhouse gas’


          Report this

          00

        • #

          Admit it. You’re wrong Mattb.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Popeye

          MattB

          YOU ARE A FOOL!!

          Always on here getting shot down (scientifically & verbally) but still coming back for more? What sort of MASOCHIST are you (and John Brookes though I’m still not convinced you’re not the same person even if you do have more than one IP address/laptop)??

          I will only make three points which somehow you ALWAYS lose sight of even though you’ve been reminded HUNDREDS of times on here.

          1 The earth is still coming out of a MIA – so of course it’s warming
          2 Correlation/causation – need I say more?
          3 Bring on all the CO2 we can muster – we need it to increase grass growth, crop yields and enhanced tree growth

          It’s a pity that the “beedin obvious” can’t get through your thick skull and reverse your reliance on “religious zealotry” for your weak arguements.

          Remember our earlier “stoushes” re these and other points on Jo’s blog (CLUE – 1% of 3% of 0.038% – how many dollars to fix this invented “problem” do you think we should pay?)

          Cheers,


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Chris G

        Ever seen it rain or snow? Was that H2O or CO2?

        It was H2O. CO2 does not precipitate in conditions found on earth. When humid air rises at a point of upward convection, the water precipitates. When the dry air comes back down, water at the surface evaporates into it. That is why the ppm of CO2 does not vary very much and the ppm of H2O varies a lot by altitude and location. It is also why CO2 has more long-term, global influence regulating the temperature of earth than H2O does.

        I would guess that if H2O did not precipitate, the earth would have become like Venus a long time ago.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Chris G, you pegged my BS meter:

          It is also why CO2 has more long-term, global influence regulating the temperature of earth than H2O does.

          No free rides with that statement. Put up some information to back the claim. It seems patently absurd since rarely is the atmosphere “dry” and when it is, i.e. over deserts, the surface heats and cools dramatically. In other words I’m calling your statement Bullchit.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Chris G

            Where does this leave us?

            You don’t understand what I have said, but you are sure that it is wrong, and I am not willing to teach you enough chemistry and physics to understand it.

            I think this is an example of why this site is not visited by very many “warmists”.

            When understanding fails, there is always an appeal to authority argument. And I could point out that Arrhenius was scoffed at when he proposed the idea of AGW 100 years ago, but no one has successfully refuted it since. But, you would reject the conclusions of every significant scientific organisation in the world, and say that it has been refuted. And then we’d go back and forth, I’d explain something, and you would ignore or misunderstand it. Not much point in carrying on here.

            OK, one go. You understand that the amount of water vapor that the air can hold is a function of its temperature. If the temperature drops, it can hold less. If the temperature drops, and the contribution of other GHGs is insignificant, any drop in temperature starts a feedback that ends with there being very little water vapor in the air, and the earth being somewhere near 30 C cooler than it is now. It isn’t that cold; so, the other GHGs, like CO2, help keep the air warm enough to absorb water vapor again.

            A climatologist would say that is a major simplification, I’m sure.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Not much point in carrying on here.

            Not much point if you can’t hold your ground I suppose….

            Ok one go:

            You understand that the amount of water vapor that the air can hold is a function of its temperature. If the temperature drops, it can hold less.

            Yes by volume but not by percentage. In other words there is still water vapor (RH) together with all the transport mechanisms vertically from sea level to the top.

            If the temperature drops, and the contribution of other GHGs is insignificant, any drop in temperature starts a feedback that ends with there being very little water vapor in the air,

            See: Relative Humidity, adiabatic lapse rate, precipitation, latent heat.

            and the earth being somewhere near 30 C cooler than it is now. It isn’t that cold; so, the other GHGs, like CO2, help keep the air warm enough to absorb water vapor again.

            Flat out bullshit. What did you do with the sun? Get your arm around the idea that this is a gelatinous mass of gasses and water vapor. It isn’t your checking account since you graduated.

            A climatologist would say that is a major simplification, I’m sure.

            Well, if that was a good climatologist, for the first time I’d agree with you.

            They are exceptionally scarce though.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Chris G

            “Yes by volume…”

            OK, so, are also aware that the amount of IR absorbed by any gas that interacts with it is a function of the density, and you are agreeing that the density is less. So, you are agreeing that there would be less greenhouse effect with less water in the air, and presumably you understand that to mean more cooling.
            So far, so good.

            “Flat out bullshit. What did you do with the sun?”

            Well, it can be calculated pretty easily that without any GHGs, the earth would be warmed by the sun to a temperature about 33 C cooler than it is now. And I figured there was no point in being too precise about it; so, called it 30.
            See Stefan-Boltzman and Planck’s Law, maybe look up albedo while you’re at it.

            Do you really think that a GHG that is pretty uniformly distributed in the atmosphere and stays there over the temperature and pressure range that exists has no stabilizing influence on a GHG that changes wildly all the time?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi MarkD

            The paradox of their claim is that the driest areas are the POLES.

            Here we would, by their reasoning, have greater warming.

            But as we know:
            The Poles Aren’t Melting.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Chris G says:

            OK, so, are also aware that the amount of IR absorbed by any gas that interacts with it is a function of the density, and you are agreeing that the density is less. So, you are agreeing that there would be less greenhouse effect with less water in the air, and presumably you understand that to mean more cooling.
            So far, so good.

            Dude, are you claiming that evaporation cannot happen without the presence of CO2? What is the density of earths atmosphere and what portion is CO2 what portion is water vapor and what portion is everything else? The debate starts with the theory that CO2 can do what you claim. I claim that water vapor, transported by convection, acting on well understood principles of physics including evaporation (not affected by 400PPM CO2 to any degree). On a planet with 71% of its surface being said water, is fundamentally an “engine of profound abilities” to move heat. You cannot demonstrate how CO2 can alter the operating properties of this engine at 400PPM. Your suggestion that CO2 needs to be there at all for the earth to maintain any specific temperature is laughable.

            Well, it can be calculated pretty easily.

            No it can’t or you’d have provided the killer paper that Jo has asked for. It further isn’t because you haven’t provided the total atmospheric CO2 delivered from undersea volcanoes.

            Do you really think that a GHG that is pretty uniformly distributed in the atmosphere and stays there over the temperature and pressure range that exists has no stabilizing influence on a GHG that changes wildly all the time?

            See what I said above. The water cycle “wildly changing” is exactly the mechanism that heats and cools the planet. This should be obvious to you based upon simple ratios CO2 : water vapor. The reason it is not is because you are infected with the AGW religion. You have lost the ability to look critically at the subject.

            By the way, with the “easy calculation” method tell me how much of the outgoing heat to space is carried up from the surface by water vapor?

            Another question: Since you claim “the poles are warming more than anywhere else” explain how this would not be a demonstration of the planet cooling? Because this would mean a significant increase in radiation to space at the poles (simple Stefan-Boltzman Law) right?


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Chris G

          Kinky,

          I don’t know what planet you are living on, but on this one, the poles are warming more than anywhere else.
          And, they are loosing ice mass at an accelerating rate.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            G Chris!!

            I was wondering mate.

            The, er, South Pole – losing ice mass at an accelerating rate. Nice hyperbole there.

            Tell me, if the average temperature never even reaches Zero C, I was wondering how that vast ice mass is melting.

            True, maybe at an average rate, that Sea Ice at the edges is calving off and that then drifts to a place where it melts, that is still only at the height of Summer, and at the extreme edges, and that Ice soon grows back with the onset of the end of Summer.

            Perhaps you may wish to look at this link, and then tell me how that, er vast Southern Polar Ice is melting at an accelerating rate.

            Antarctic Connection

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Chris G

            Hi Tony,

            Well, first, a hyperbole is an exaggeration to create an effect; what I have done is replace the term “mass loss” with “melt” because melting in place is not the only way that ice can be lost from polar regions. Kind of wondering why you thing it is.

            Your link indicates that Antarctica is cold. Really? What made you think no one else was aware of that?
            It says nothing about the amount of ice there.

            You might look up how the viscosity of ice varies with temperature, and also how ice sheets tend to buttress output glaciers, and when they are lost, the glacier flows faster.

            Your insistence on restricting the argument to melt alone is an attempt to obfuscate the obvious.

            Take a look at these and see if you still want to claim that nothing is happening to the ice in polar regions. You might want to look into the viscosity of ice across temperature, and the loss of buttressing effect from lost ice shelves as well.

            Antartica

            Greenland

            Arctic


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            KKeith, Tony, Chris,

            Whatever the situation with polar ice is likely nothing more than natural variation. There is ample history to indicate that the changes we see today are no reason to become alarmed. Clearly, we only have been able to accurately track ice since the very recent years. Only an idiot would suggest that we “know” much of anything about natural ice changes prior to even 100 years ago. Ice has been arbitrarily measured against 1979. This is roughly 30 years and how many times have we heard that 40 years = climate less than 40 years is weather. Chris links to Polar Science above and there we find this statement:

            Sea ice volume is an important climate indicator. It depends on both ice thickness and extent and therefore more directly tied to climate forcing than extent alone. However, Arctic sea ice volume cannot currently be observed continuously. Observations from satellites, Navy submarines, moorings, and field measurements are all limited in space and time. The assimilation of observations into numerical models currently provides one way of estimating sea ice volume changes on a continous basis. Volume estimates using age of sea ice as a proxy for ice thickness are another useful method (see here and here). Comparisons of the model estimates of the ice thickness with observations help test our understanding of the processes represented in the model that are important for sea ice formation and melt.

            Indicating that we are still up against modelling to estimate ice and even with that cannot know what is a “normal” amount of ice at the poles in geologic time frames.

            Polar ice changes would logically be correlated with temperature changes. Correlation with CO2, no matter how tempting, cannot become causation and only fools would go there. It only gets worse when we know that places like Greenland were substantially warmer climate than today. I speculate that polar ice, like all things earthly, are modulated by forces not well known over time periods that are equally not well known.

            Without too much difficulty, one could entertain me with the notion that the AGW scientists were aware of or had glimpses of these cycles and purposely set the 1979 date knowing that it would appear more frightening. Evidence of a willingness to do so would be the issue of Polar Bears. The average person thinks that Polar Bears are in imminent danger of extinction based on typical comments from warmists.

            Not true:
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/20/polar-bear-population-no-change/

            They are thriving very possibly over populating. If their numbers decline from starvation due to over harvesting seals, you just know the warmist camps will use both the resulting seal and bear population decrease as AGW evidence of warming.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Mark

            The scientific observations of ChrisG on his TV have shown him that undoubtedly, the Poles are Melting.

            If it’s on TV science show on the ABC it must be true.

            Therefore, we are beaten.

            The ice is melting. The ice is melting. The ice is melting. The ice is melting.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Chris G

          So, you think that despite the loss of millions of square kilometers of ice, that there hasn’t been a loss of volume. That would be possible if the remaining extent were getting thicker. How much thicker do you think it is; and do you have any evidence for that?

          All of data I’ve seen indicates that not only is the extent in decline, but the remaining ice is getting thinner. I’m not sure how you manage to reconcile that with the idea that the volume has not reduced.

          “Another question: Since you claim “the poles are warming more than anywhere else” explain how this would not be a demonstration of the planet cooling? ”

          Uh, let’s see, the planet is not cooling because it is getting warmer?
          You are very confused.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mark D.

            “Another question: Since you claim “the poles are warming more than anywhere else” explain how this would not be a demonstration of the planet cooling? ”

            Uh, let’s see, the planet is not cooling because it is getting warmer?
            You are very confused.

            Let me rephrase that paragraph to make it easier since you forget what your warmist kinfolk say is supposed to be happening.

            Starting with this link: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/the-travesty-of-the-missing-heat-deep-ocean-or-outer-space/

            And specifically this graph: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/argo-ocean-heat.gif

            So where is all of your warming? It has to show up in the ocean first right?

            Now for the rephrasing: Wouldn’t warmer poles and especially melting ice provide additional cooling ability to the whole globe (because of simple Stefan-Boltzman)? Sort of like taking off your knit winter hat will cool the entire body? Now I can imagine that you’ll need a little time to think about this.

            Once that extra heat is lost to space that might account for why ARGO can’t find the heat your brethren said will have to be there?

            PS re-read what I said about ice. My impression of your ability to comprehend what I said, hinges on the next useless question you ask me about ice area, mass or thickness.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      BobC

      MattB
      December 7, 2011 at 6:12 pm · Reply

      Point 9:There is no science-based argument for CO2 being the dominant greenhouse gas; instead, CO2 is a minor greenhouse component whose effect is greatly overshadowed by that of water vapour.

      Of course there is. Read the IPCC, it is a clear science-based argument. Car more so than this non-science point of Gina’s. circa 1 deg C per doubling pus feedbacks – I thought we were all in agreement with that?

      If such feedbacks actually existed, they would show up when anything caused warming (or cooling), not just CO2. They would, for example, amplify el Nino’s, volcanic eruptions, Solar effects, etc.

      Not only is there no sign of such positive WV feedback in the temperature data, but there is also no sign of elevated WV in the atmosphere when it warms (a requirement for positive feedback).

      Quite possibly, WV + clouds produce a negative feedback.

      Because you can imagine a feedback effect doesn’t make it real — the data doesn’t support this hypothesis of strong WV feedback.

      (And, of course, the idea that WV feedback only is significant for CO2-driven warming is completely illogical.)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi BobC

        The idea of WV feedbacks or forcings is so scientifically stupid that I never mention them in any calculations.

        Just sticking to the atmospheric humidity factor is sufficient.

        You only have to stand under a large cloud bank in the midday summer sun to know that clouds reducing Surface Heating.

        Heat “always” follows the temperature gradient.

        Earths surface 295 deg K to deep space at 2.7 deg K.

        We gotta find a way of holding on to any heat we get for as long as possible.

        To be arguing over trivia, as most often happens in Global Warming, is just politics, not science.

        :)


        Report this

        00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Especially liked your last line “And, of course, the idea that WV feedback only is significant for CO2-driven warming is completely illogical”.

        This referring to the fact that water has the predominant Greenhouse effect and so will have the major “forcing” effect if it existed.

        Time to remove Water from the air.

        :)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    MattB

    “Point 10:To get carbon dioxide, a plant food, into perspective, for every one carbon dioxide molecule of human origin there are 32 of natural origin in a total of 88,000 other molecules. It has yet to be shown that this one molecule in 88,000 drives climate change and there is only information to the contrary because no past climate changes (which were larger and more rapid than anything we measure today) were driven by carbon dioxide, certainly not human induced, and what we measure today is within variability.”

    lol crap is plant food too and it stinks as bad as this argument.
    This is essentially point 9 again anyway which was crap.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Seriously though Jo I would not have believed that Gina’s 10 points could be this bad. You should have coached her A LOT MORE on how to string a coherent skeptical argument together. This is comedy gold, amateur hour stuff. This is climate skepticism circa 2000. Maybe you should send her a copy of the handbooks?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    MattB

    Not much point in posting links to William Connelly’s memoirs as “proof” of anything except cultists’ need to alter history and observable fact.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MattB

      any actual credible criticism of any of the links? The wikipedia ones are not controversial. I also linked to skeptical pages. I’ve not listed anything as proof, and anyone with counter evidence is free to post it.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        Remind me MattB – just how many misleading and/or patently false entries and edits did Connelly make on Wiki before he was ultimately banned?

        4,000?

        5,000?

        Truth is, ANY entry on Wikipedia that has anything remotely to do with climate change or CAGW or the physics, chemistry or history behind it is now so suspect as to totally useless as a source.

        Most people simply don’t have the time or patience to actually go in and see if Connelly has fiddled with the particular article being quoted.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    memoryvault

    MattB

    Read the IPCC, it is a clear science-based argument.

    Ho ho, that’s even better than William’s wiki.

    Keep going MattB – how about something from little Johnny Crook Cook?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Phew! Matty.

    You need a schooner of Moselle ….. real bad!

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MattB

      need something stronger. The kid’s Christmas preschool concert was difficult enough. But to back it up with preschool level “skepticism” takes some beating:)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        MattB, with a comment like that you remind me of the joke about the Village Idiot.

        The Village Idiot was always banging his head against a brick wall.
        One day somebody asked the Village Idiot why he was always banging his head against a brick wall.

        To which the Village Idiot replied:
        “Because it feels so good when I stop”.

        If being here is so painful for you MattB, the answer is simple.

        .
        Go away.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      MattB

      Tony seriously though Gina’s 10 points are pretty crap – you’ve got to admit it.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        John Brookes

        OK, I give up, I admit Gina’s points were pretty crap.

        But why would she think like that? Where would she go to find that sort of crap? I think Gina is far too busy to actually think this stuff up herself. Maybe we can find the email to one of her underlings, “Hey, underling, could you please write an anti-climate change article for that mining rag. Tell them we’ll pull our advertising if they don’t publish”.

        [Do you have proof of this allegation? otherwise it sounds defamatory. Since you post with a real name I'll leave it there.] ED


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Catamon

          WHAT!!!!

          Are you suggesting that Gina R would engage in Julie Bishop type behavior??

          Shame on you!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          MattB

          Does Anne-Kit Littler work for Gina? OR maybe Bush Bunny?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            memoryvault

            No matter.

            After the next election Rinehart can employ Stephen Conroy.

            He should be a valuable asset given the training he’s had with the Australia Network tender.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          wes george

          Poor Johnny,

          He emotes Gina’s points are “crap” but he can’t say why.

          I use the word emotes here, because if Johnny “thought” Gina’s points were crap he could explain why he thinks as much, point by point. But Johnny, like most warmists, aren’t really thinking, they are experiencing feelings, flushes of emotions, fleeting imagery garnered from Gore’s film and moments existential panic. However, the first causes of these emotional responses are totally unrelated to the Earth’s climate.

          Rather the warmist’s emotional morbidity emanates from a personal psychological state induced ultimately by specific life failures, such as a divorce, substance abuse, failure to secure an education and thus the financial rewards that go with it or even just general acedia. In some cases these kinds of personal failures can create low self-esteem which is then projected outward upon the world and the patient who lacks personal self-awareness might even convince himself that the world is what has failed, rather than himself. We can see this clearly in the Occupy Whatever movement who can not even articulate why they are so unhappy but are sure it must have something to do with other people’s success, greed, airplane contrails, karma, whatever.

          Likewise, I think that many warmists and Greens are also dismal individuals who have projected their personal dissatisfaction with their pathetic lives they created for themselves onto the weather, complete with paranoid fantasies about the climate being controlled and the planet destroyed by sinful avarice.

          Psychologically Warmism is a most comforting faith for the dismal. To believe the Earth is doomed and that greed is the ultimate cause not only explains their personal failings but also excuses them from ever having to bother achieve anything substantial for their future. After all, there is no future according to Bob Brown who has repeatedly claimed that the planet is doomed if we don’t slash global carbon emissions by 50% before 2020….

          For some people this is a very reassuring thought.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            John Brookes

            I partly agree with you Wes. There is no doubt that a great deal of “doom and gloomism” is simply projection of personal issues onto the world. And I’m pretty sure that the more loony part of both the left and green movements suffer from this in spades.

            Having said this, the climate change denialists have their own psychopathology. Here I’m not talking about the genuinely skeptical, but rather those whose “gut” tells them that climate scientists are wrong, and who then seek out information to confirm their “gut feeling”. These individuals could have been successful, if only “big government”, “political correctness gone mad”, “environmental fruitloops” etc etc hadn’t got in their way. They are rugged individuals, cruelled by a world they don’t fit into, yearning for expansion and frontiers. They were once influential in their field, but now are fading into irrelevancy, and hoping for one last hurrah.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            wes george

            Johnny loves a good myth, as do all warmists.

            When you look a bit closer the wheels fall off. But how would Johnny know? Obviously, he doesn’t have much practical experience with the modern existential issues that come success. Or Johnny would know that Big Government, political correctness and environmental fruitloops are only ever a problem for those who have achieved success, property and status in their lives or those who aspire through their personal hard yakka and intelligence to create a successful life for their families.

            Oh, and btw, the only “rugged individualists” who are “crueled by the world” are either dead or excel at wheelchair sport competitions. By definition rugged individualists never whinge about the cards life has dealt them, they just get on with it.

            As for the dissing of “those once influential in their field,” the reason why so many outspoken skeptics are emeritus has been made clear by the Climategate saga. To be a young, clever, up-and-coming climate skeptic at the CSIRO is to quite simply commit career suicide. Yes, it’s just like being a biologist in the Soviet Union during the era of Lysenkoism.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        handjive

        Not as much crap as that dirge of wikipedia-skeptical junk science I just scrolled through from you.

        MattB
        December 7, 2011 at 7:33 pm · Reply
        HOw about you contribute something as useful as a point by point demolition of Rineheart’s rubbish, troll.

        “HOw about you contribute something as useful as a point by point demolition…”

        Egad. You are seriously deluded. You actually believe that ‘contribution’ was ‘useful’.
        Chock full of unsubstantiated scientific rebuttals!
        Say no more!
        Al Gore is on his way over (flying) to give you a Nobel Peace prize as we read!
        Thanks for the laugh. (so far)


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Tony, PLEASE! I like that wine. If he drinks it that will just drive the price up. He needs a tall glass of Everclear!


      Report this

      00

  • #

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0059.txt&search=507784

    Funding for climate campaigners.

    A call for proposals.

    from ???@eyfa.org

    Deadline: 30th September 1999

    **please distribute to others who may be interested**

    We would like to invite proposals from activists working on climate campaigning.
    Following an activist and NGO meeting in March this year, attended by climate
    activists from Europe, Asia, USA, Australia and Latin America, funding was obtained to
    support two people to work on a project connected to the sixth United Nations Climate
    Convention, otherwise known as the Conference of the Parties (COP6), which will
    happen in Autumn/Winter 2000/2001. The United Nations is currently considering only
    one possible location for the meeting – den Haag, The Netherlands.

    The International working group formed after the activist and NGO meeting are looking
    for two people who would be able to create something innovative and effective with
    this funding. They will be based in a Climate research group in Portugal,
    ‘Euronatura’. The campaign will be supported by the International working group
    which has experience of United Nations negotiations, direct action, campaigning,
    economics and climate science. Groups supporting this campaign include : eyfa, Aseed,
    Carbusters Magazine, Korean Ecological Youth, Free The Planet USA, EuroNatura, Climate
    Action Network Latin America, Climate Action Network Central and Eastern Europe and
    Oilwatch Europe.

    The thing that joins these people together is the desire to work together to
    radicalise the agenda of the climate negotiations. The current direction of the
    negotiations cannot hope to define targets nor build mechanisms of implementation and
    compliance which will stop the currently dangerous emissions levels of Greenhouse
    Gase


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce D Scott

    Thank you Jo, I am really impressed and encouraged.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Why Carbon is a Threat to the Establishment -

    http://thecrowhouse.com/freecarbonenergy.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    It’s a start. OTOH Helen Sellout has been appointed to the board of the Reserve Bank because she is a Julia fan and by extension has to be a warmer. An idiot by any other name. Also on the Steve Price show yesterday, Greg Hunt the Shadow Minister for Climate Change etc, still won’t modify his warmist views. For supposedly smart people they are so ignorant and just plain dumb.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Jo, you’ve told us MattB is not a troll. Wanna reconsider that?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MattB

      HOw about you contribute something as useful as a point by point demolition of Rineheart’s rubbish, troll.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Jo also believes Ms Rinehart is our friend, and that the Coalition will repudiate its climate change policy the moment it is elected.

      .
      Nobody’s perfect.


      Report this

      00

    • #
    • #
      wes george

      MattB isn’t a troll because he has been with this website since it’s inception. He’s an example of what Eric Hoffer calls a True Believer.

      While his behaviour is troll-like it’s only because he’s exhausted all his arguments long ago. He has been rationally defeated so many times that he’s adopted the tactics of common trollism, hit and run smears, offers no substantial argument (since that can be deconstruction and shown to be in error) and generally issuing short one-line bleats of bland disapproval which can’t be nailed to the wall. And when he’s nailed he morosely whinges he’s misunderstood, like he never supported Al Gore or he never said climate change was catastrophic. Today half of Matt’s post are one-line pokes, the rest are back pedalling from positions never clearly stated in the first place.

      Contrast the cowering, defeated MattB of today with the heroic, confidently evangelical MattB of 2009. Read it and then find some pity for the poor confused sod:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/agw-is-a-religion/

      MattB is a snapshot of the decomposing state of the whole warmist religion. He knows the End is Nigh, but is in (dare I say it?) denial.

      It’s not over yet folks, if history is any guide. Remember the Weathermen and Baader Mienhoff? They were the last gasp of old school Maoist zealotry going out with a bang in the West. Once a Coalition government is elected and the carbon tax repealed (or hopelessly watered down) we can expect Green “civil disobedience” to rise. All the rational and self-interested minds, those open enough, curious enough to adapt their opinions to fit new data are fleeing the sinking CAGW ship with great, if silent, haste. But blokes like MattB are going to go down with the ship, faithful true believers willing to sacrifice all for what the climate elite call “The Cause.”

      The most heinous and pathetic Green crimes are yet to come out of shear desperation for The Cause… We can thank MattB for proving to us by following Nova’s blog from day one, yet learning nothing, that reason will never carry light into the darkness of every soul. Some will always remain beyond the pale.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    System

    On Gina’s point 9 “There is no science-based argument for CO2 being the dominant greenhouse gas”.

    We all know, including Bear Grills, that deserts are HOT during the day and ice COLD during the night. That’s because in deserts, there’s little moisture in the air.

    Yet, there’s the same amount of CO2 in the deserts as there is in tropical rainforests. Are the deserts’ temperature ranges getting smaller like the tropics? If they are, then CO2 sensitivity is important – if not, don’t worry!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Wrong on this count

    There is no science-based argument for CO2 being the dominant greenhouse gas; instead, CO2 is a minor greenhouse component whose effect is greatly overshadowed by that of water vapour.

    There’s NO greenhouse effect OR gasses.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      I don’t know. I’m pretty sure about the greenhouse effect, but I’m damn certain that there are gases!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        very familiar with methane aren’t you JB?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        Theres no paper that outlines how this (so called greenhouse effect) is supposed to work in the framework of physics! Planetry atmospheres are not GREENHOUSES! The paper by Gerlich et al hasnt been disproved. Get a life JB.
        Go and suck your bankers buts the ones you love that run the EU and the IPCC!


        Report this

        00

  • #
    KeithH

    Why Malcolm Turnbull was so anxious to help Rudd sell Australia out with the ETS before Copenhagen?

    From the Climategate 2.0 collection, the alarmists look to hook up with Goldman Sachs as a strategic ally in 1998:

    date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:00:38 +0100
    from: Trevor Davies
    subject: goldman-sachs
    to: j.palutiko p.jones,m.hulme

    Jean,

    We (Mike H) have done a modest amount of work on degree-days for G-S. They now want to extend this. They are involved in dealing in the developing energy futures market.
    G-S is the sort of company that we might be looking for a ‘strategic alliance’ with. I suggest the four of us meet with ?? (forgotten his name)for an hour on the afternoon of Friday 12 June (best guess for Phil & Jean – he needs a date from us). Thanks.

    Trevor


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Hey Matt B,

    Point Number 3,567,456 relating to meaningless warminista crap!

    You say ;

    `The kid’s Christmas preschool concert was difficult enough`

    I trust you walked with your kids to that concert! Less CO2 emissions, of course, and then walked home, wouldn`t have been far would it? Then to a nice dinner meal of TOFU, no meat of course, around a candlelight dinner? You don`t use nappies do you? Do you know how much CO2 emissions go into the production of nappies MATT B?. Ha Ha you guys are unreal and not living in the real world, like me, with 3 beaut. kids, a mortgage and a salary of less than $60,000. Try living on that Matt the Brat.

    You are a hypocrite!

    Get off this site and blow your load over at Get-up or Al Gore`s lovefest.com

    Election Now.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Influential people are getting the message: Gina Rinehart explains the science of climate change Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MattB believes 3% is enough to cause huge problems. So Mattb we need to shut all our human endeavors? stop all mechanized farming? Let me hear your “scientific” solution.

    What will you do? (besides pay your stupid tax)….

    I could say I’m a skeptic because I’m practical. You know there is no workable solution to cut that much carbon. It’s an impossible deal. You’ll just see more and more wealth transferred around the globe.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Mark,

      You can’t transfer wealth with taxation, you can only transfer money.

      And since most (all?) economies are now into “quantitive easing”, i.e. printing money to repay sovereign debt, there is loads of it sloshing around in the world’s financial systems.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Call it what you like Rereke, I just know that they got most all of mine. You might argue that I never had any “wealth” only various instrument of money (mortgage, car loan, business line of credit). My home is nearly under water (mortgage balance to sale price) all other lines of credit nearly maxed to keep payroll flowing. Retirement monies are invested in the roulette wheel of wall street. What is left over will be sucked up by my City (running red ink), my school district (just spent a 3rd world GDP on new schools), my county (will be running red ink in a few years due to retirements), my state (is running red ink) and you know about uncle Sam and his lose wallet right?

        So please let me know where I can dip my bucket in all that “sloshing”.

        Then, if it’s not an imposition, take a boat over to AU and slap Catamon for suggesting that the problem is “lack of taxes”.

        I’ll be here at home stockpiling food and ammunition while it is still cheap.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    KeithH

    Some interesting food (or perhaps water) for thought for the “CO2 is evil” trolls who have descended in force today.

    “science has been much less successful so far in reducing the water consumed in transpiration.” Fortunately for us, however, mankind en masse has had a measurable amount of success in this area, albeit unintentionally.

    What we are talking about here is the extraction of fossil fuels from the crust of the Earth, which has provided so much coal, gas and oil to fuel the engines of industry that the carbon dioxide given off to the air in the combustion process has raised the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration by some 40% since the inception of the Industrial Revolution. And that phenomenon has had two major effects on man’s production of food. It has significantly increased the leaf photosynthetic rates of our crops, while it has significantly reduced their transpiration rates, which has led to significant increases in leaf water use efficiency, or the amount of biomass produced per unit of water transpired in the process.

    In spite of these well-documented facts, to quote Morgan et al. (2011), “many believe that CO2-induced reductions in transpiration at the leaf level will be largely offset at the canopy level by increases in leaf area,” and that “global warming is predicted to induce desiccation in many world regions through increases in evaporative demand.”

    But in a real-world test of these two potentially negative phenomena in a Prairie Heating and CO2 Enrichment (PHACE) experiment conducted in a native mixed-grass prairie in Wyoming (USA), they found that the positive effects of elevated CO2 prevailed, indicating, in their words, that “in a warmer, CO2-enriched world, both soil water content and productivity in semi-arid grasslands may be higher than previously expected,” providing what Baldocchi (2011) describes as “one of the first and best views of how a mixed-grass ecosystem growing in a semi-arid climate will respond to future CO2 and climatic conditions,” while a full decade earlier, in fact, Robock et al. (2000) had already developed a massive collection of soil moisture data from more than 600 stations spread across a variety of climatic regimes, including the former Soviet Union, China, Mongolia, India and the United States; and in analyzing those observations, they had determined that “in contrast to predictions of summer desiccation with increasing temperatures, for the stations with the longest records, summer soil moisture in the top one meter has increased while temperatures have risen.”

    “Nevertheless, prudence suggests that we still pursue all avenues available to us to further increase both individual plant water use efficiency and whole-field crop water use efficiency. Mankind’s CO2 emissions may ultimately prove a godsend to humanity, as they just might make the difference between our being able to adequately feeding our expanding population in the very near future or our failing to do so in a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions.”

    For full article:

    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/nov/29nov2011a4.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Clive P

      Interesting to see how there is no comment on Keith,s comments regarding the effects of increased co2 levels on plant life.
      It appears to me that there is little understanding of, or interest in this subject as people seem to have a fixation on the abstract arguments triggered by climate simulations rather than the practical.
      I suggest you all read the link supplied and then go on to further research the implications of higher co2 levels and plant life on planet earth.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Chris G

      Well, actually, there is much interest.

      Hadley cells were predicted by models to shift poleward and carry the rain bands with them. In reality, that has started already. It looks like we are getting 2-4 degrees of shift in latitude per degree of warming. In case you haven’t noticed, most of our agriculture is within the current rain bands. Care to take up an argument as to whether any yield increase as a result of more CO2 is going to compensate for loss of yields as a result of less rain?

      It is well documented, for instance, that yields go down as the number of days above 95 F increases. It is well established that temperatures are going up, and that means more days above 95 F.

      Let’s ask Russia if the 2010 was a good year for agricultural production. Let’s ask southern Europe if 2003 was a good year, or Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas if 2011 was a good year. How has Australia been doing in the last decade or so?

      The area under extreme heat waves is growing.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Chris G says…

        Let’s ask Russia if the 2010 was a good year for agricultural production. Let’s ask southern Europe if 2003 was a good year, or Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas if 2011 was a good year. How has Australia been doing in the last decade or so?

        I asked, and here is what they said…

        Australia:

        “Fark it mate, the last ten years was tough but nowhere near as tough as the FEDERATION DROUGHT when the Murray stopped flowing completely.”

        Russia:

        “Haha haha we Ruskies measure the severity of our climate by the number of vodkas one must drink to forget our troubles.
        Da da the summer of 2010 was warm, we needed 5 shots of vodka to get by each day.
        But you want to know tough? haha haha ASK ADOLF HITLER about the winter of 1941-2 when the mercury in the thermometres froze, my grandad says it was a 9 shot winter. Get it? nyet?”

        Americans:

        “Well I tell yer, the droughts bin tough round these parts, but thanks to all the oil income, us Texans, Oklahomans and Kansans bin able to cope pretty darn well with eet. But my moonshine runnin’ granpappy tells me the DUSTBOWL of the 30′s was somethin’ fearsome. When that dust blowed, it’d clean tear your skin off. Now be a good boy and hand me that hogshead.”

        Now perhaps Chris can tell us what the atmospheric level of CO2 was during the above 3 periods.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Mark D.

        So provide a map with graphs (you must know what GIS is) and demonstrate these “days over 95F” worldwide. When you do that also provide the historical references to the highs that approached 95F in the last 100 years (cause you know 40 years is just weather).


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Catamon

    7.”and cooled (1998-present” “At present, carbon dioxide emissions are increasing yet we are cooling.”

    So that would be wrong then. Much surprisement!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MattB

      please can’t you find sources that are not tainted by the fact they are hosted and written by genuine scientific experts!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        please can’t you find sources that are not tainted by the fact they are hosted and written by genuine scientific experts!

        Oh MattB – you are such an entertaining twit.

        You are, of course, referring to that group of “scientific experts” and their associates, who have privately, collectively, described Mann’s “hockey schtick” graph as everything from “unsupported” to “unsubstantiated”, to “unscientific” to plain old “crap”.

        And yet publicly have continued to support it with no less than five (so far) articles on RC which we now know courtesy of the climategate 2 emails, none of the authors actually believe in or support privately.

        Yep – nothing like quoting “genuine scientific experts”.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Gotta love graphs that are labeled “adjusted data”…..

        So you like to demonstrate that natural forces are easily able to overwhelm measly co2? Good for you!

        Now answer Jo’s question at 22.2


        Report this

        00

      • #
        wes george

        ROTFL….genuine scientific experts. Sounds like a bad beer commercial to me. Go with the Gusto! You only have one life to live! It’s Miller Time…brought to you by genuine scientific experts as seen on TV, available at all reputable government ministries.

        Spoken by MattB.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      BobC

      Catamon (@41) links to a graph (from RealClimate) that clearly shows that there has been no warming since 1998, and even a small amount of cooling. (And, this is the graph from the premier AGW propaganda site on the web.)

      RC’s text on the graph says that:

      … they [Foster and Rahmstorf] predict it [2011] will still rank amongst the 10 hottest years on record

      Whatever you think of RealClimate, this graph and statement is in no way a refutation of Rinehart’s statement that:

      “At present, carbon dioxide emissions are increasing yet we are cooling.”

      In fact, the graph is clear evidence that the “cooling” part of her statement is correct, and the “10 hottest years on record” (assuming, of course, you truncate the graph at 1950, as RC has done) is irrelevant to Rinehart’s statement.

      Catamon fails logic again. What “surprisement”.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Tristan

      That post of Tamino’s is one of the strongest and simplest rebuttals I’ve seen to the cooling meme.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        BobC

        Tristan
        December 8, 2011 at 2:23 am · Reply
        That post of Tamino’s is one of the strongest and simplest rebuttals I’ve seen to the cooling meme.

        Perhaps a rebuttal for the simplest minded (who, apparently, make up much of his and RC’s readership).

        Tamino’s claim that all the natural forcing factors are known is laughable. He, of course, includes TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) which is known to have only a small effect on temperatures. He, of course, ignores the strong correllation between Solar activity and temperatures — pretending, with the rest of the Climate Clowns — that because they don’t know the details of the connection, it doesn’t exist.

        Perhaps somebody should inform Kevin Trenberth (“It’s a travesty we can’t account for the lack of warming”) that Tamino has the answer — at least for the simple-minded. The actual situation is far more complex: See here and here.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Tristan

        Say Bobby, would you mind linking to where Tamino says that? I do so love a direct quote.

        Sorry, I’m being naughty and asking for the impossible.;)


        Report this

        00

        • #
          BobC

          Tristan
          December 8, 2011 at 3:31 am · Reply
          Say Bobby, would you mind linking to where Tamino says that? I do so love a direct quote.

          Sorry, I’m being naughty and asking for the impossible.;)

          No, Tristan, you’re just being dumb and illustrating your lack of reading comprehension. I didn’t quote anything from Tamino.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Tristan

          Ironic.

          I didn’t quote anything from Tamino.

          I know dearie, I want a direct quote to back up the following statement you made:

          Tamino’s claim that all the natural forcing factors are known…

          Show me where he makes that claim.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            handjive

            Tamino:

            Natural factors cause temperature fluctuations which make the man-made global warming signal less clear, fluctuations which are often exploited by fake skeptics to suggest that global warming has paused, or slowed down, or isn’t happening at all.

            A new paper by Foster & Rahmstorf accounts for some of those other factors, and by removing their influence from the temperature record makes the progress of global warming much more clear.

            Question for Tristan:

            If the new paper by Foster & Rahmstorf DOES NOT remove all ‘Natural factors cause temperature fluctuations which make the man-made global warming signal less clear’, how does it ‘makes the progress of global warming much more clear?

            ‘Tamino’s claim that all the natural forcing factors are known’ is there.

            Or the new paper that Tamino is highlighting by Foster & Rahmstorf is incomplete crap, lacking ‘all known natural forcing factors’.

            Do try to keep up, sweetie.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            I still don’t see the claim.


            Report this

            00

    • #

      So that would be wrong then. Much surprisement!

      says catomon and links to a Realclimate article where…

      Foster and Rahmstorf tease out and remove the short-term variability due to ENSO, solar cycles and volcanic eruptions and find that after this adjustment all five time series match much more closely than before (see graph).

      Teased out solar cycles? How the F&#@ did they do that when they ALL admit we don’t have enough knowledge about the climate effects of solar cycles.

      And teased out ENSO variability? So we’re to believe they know exactly how much global warming/cooling any given ENSO event produces? Hahahahahah hahahah hahaha catomon believes it and presents it as if it was some dictate from up on high haha.

      And what about cloud variability, did they tease that out too? NO
      What about Ozone variability in the stratosphere especially above the poles, did they tease that out too? “c’mon baby, come out, here’s a nice little treat for you” like trying to tease out a kitten from under the couch hahah hahahah hahahaha

      And get this statement from the CLIMATE GODS at realclimate..

      and find that after this adjustment all five time series match much more closely than before

      Well DUH!!! keep removing whatever causes a variance, eventually they’l all end up a flat line. A PERFECT MATCH hahah hahahaa

      I did a hindcast of global temperatures on a roll of toilet paper whilst taking a dump once, I TOOK OUT ALL AEROSOLS, VOLCANOS, SOLAR INFLUENCES, CLOUDS ENSOs PDOs AMOs IODs AOs AAOs NAOs SOIs PNAs EPOs WPOs PTPs PEPs and my regular deep methane farts and guess what I got? I GOT A FLAT LINE THAT MATCHED PERFECTLY WITH THE FULL 20thC.

      Pssstt catomon, come closer, I got a secret tip for you.

      “you know how after getting our wages, our expenses like food fuel housing utilities etc seem to eat away at it so badly that we just can’t seem to save enough? Do what the geniuses at realclimate do, tease out all those expenses, pretend they don’t exist and quick as a flash YOU’LL HAVE A SAVINGS TREND LINE “THAT MATCHES MUCH MORE CLOSELY” WITH THAT OF AL GORE.”


      Report this

      00

  • #
    CHIP

    Not bad. But I do have a few criticisms. Gina states:

    The IPCC states that 97% of carbon dioxide emissions are natural and only 3% are human. It has not been scientifically shown how the 3% contribution can drive global warming when the 97% does not.

    Sure. It is true that natural emissions overwhelm anthropogenic CO2-emissons. According to the IPCC (in AR4 2007) natural emissions are 771 gigatonnes/year while human emissions are 29 gigatonnes/year. By my calculation that works out at 96.2%. However to argue that the human contribution is only 3.8% based on the simple fact that the natural CO2 emissions account for 96.2% of all emissions each year is a misrepresentation of the IPCC’s arguments, because the IPCC argue that the natural emissions are more or less in equilibrium (i.e. the inflows and outflows essentially cancel each other out) and that the oceans can only absorb 10% of the excess anthropogenic CO2 because of the so-called Revelle Buffer Factor. Hence, if the Revelle Factor were true, it is theoretically possible for humans to have contributed significantly more CO2 to the atmospheric CO2-greenhouse. Gina needs to address the Revelle Factor. I’m not saying that the Revelle Factor is correct, but to soundly refute the IPCC’s claim that human CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere, it must be addressed in my view.

    She also says:

    To get carbon dioxide, a plant food, into perspective, for every one carbon dioxide molecule of human origin there are 32 of natural origin in a total of 88,000 other molecules

    I don’t think so. The current atmospheric CO2 level stands at 390ppmv (i.e. 0.039%). Therefore a CO2 molecule makes up about 1 molecule in every 2500 non-CO2 molecules spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. According to the IPCC humans have increased atmospheric CO2 to 390ppmv from its assumed pre-industrial baseline of 280ppmv. Therefore the assumed human component stands at 110ppmv (i.e. 0.011%). That works out at about 1 molecule in every 9000 other molecules spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. Not one molecule in every 88,000. These are rather simple calculations, you know. What’s more amazing to me, is that the IPCC tell us that yearly CO2 increase is pushing up the temperatures each year. According to the Keeling Curve, atmospheric CO2 is increasing at the rate of 2ppmv/year (i.e. 0.0002%). That’s 1 molecule in every 500,000 other molecules spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. And that increase of 1 molecule in 500,000 each year is apparently leading us to a climate catastrophe.

    The next quote that struck me is this one:

    Over the last 120,000 years, there have been 25 periods of warming where temperature rose by up to 8 deg C

    Mmm. Is this global temperatures? I would be interested in knowing what paleo-climate data indicates this. To my knowledge the temperature during the Eemian was much hotter than any temperature in the current Holocene period and that was only about 4C higher, according to the ice-core data. Any sources?

    Also, another one of here arguments against AGW is:

    Six of the six great ice ages formed at a time when atmospheric carbon dioxide was far higher than now. Clearly, this did not drive warming

    Apparently so. But we are considering vaguely hypothesized events that occurred millions of years ago. I don’t think this really constitutes as ‘evidence’. There are so many unknown factors. It is widely acknowledged that the Sun was sufficiently weaker millions of years ago during the ice-ages by about 5%. Someone needs to work out mathematically how much of a difference that would have made to the temperature. Sweeping, unquantified statements like the one above don’t really move the debate forwards in any way in my opinion. I don’t usually pick-apart AGW-advocates arguments, but I feel that we need to raise our game a little. Most of the arguments posed by Gina, in my view, don’t really refute the AGW-hypothesis at all. Sorry Gina.

    I could go on, but I’ll leave it there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    CHIP

    That should read: “I don’t usually pick-apart AGW-sceptics arguments”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe's World

    Jo,

    Very confusing analysis…Sea level rose 130 meters???
    Were we not in an Ice Age then?
    Were did all this new water appear?
    The oceans should have been much lower due to the volume of Ice covering the land at that time.
    If you melted all ice on this planet, it may be 3 meters at most by the square meter of ice available for planetary cover..


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Sea levels actually rose over 1000 metres at times.
      We are still in an Ice Age.
      It’s just not as cold as it has been.

      New water?
      The oceans were much lower during the depth of the most-recent cooling. In part, that produced a land-bridge providing a path for the first invaders of Australia.

      If you melted all the ice …

      Show us your work. Only then can we show you where you’ve gone wrong.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    David Lilley

    MattB, in your attempted rebuttal of Point 1 you refer to the assertion that CO2 levels have been stable between 200 ppm and 300 ppm for 800,000 years, based on the analysis of ice cores. This assertion has been trotted out so often that it is rarely questioned, but it is as reliable as the Hockey Stick temperature curve.

    1. Ice core analyses published before 1982 included some readings well above 300 ppm for pre-Industrial times and some below 300 ppm for recent times. Analyses published after 1986 did not. Could this be anything to do with the establishment of the global warming industry by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change held in 1985 ?

    2. The underlying premise of these analyses is that the air extracted from the ice cores is the same as the air trapped decades / centuries / millennia ago. This premise is almost certainly incorrect as there are over 20 chemical processes going on in the ice which can affect the air, some of which preferentially affect CO2. For example, despite its sub-zero temperature, the ice contains liquid water. Gases can dissolve in water and the colder it is, the more dissolved gas can be retained. CO2 is 70x more soluble than nitrogen and 30x more soluble than oxygen in super-cool water. So proportionately more CO2 gets dissolved and the concentration left behind in the air is seriously under-representative of the original concentration. When the air is extracted by crushing the ice cores the researchers get lower CO2 concentrations than when they allow the samples to melt, allowing dissolved gases to de-gas.

    3. When the ice is compressed the gases therein form clathrates. As different gases form clathrates at different pressures, this fractionates any air samples. When the pressure is released by the extraction of the core the clathrates fracture. The air will recombine in ways which smooth out multidecadal variations giving a spurious impression of stable concentrations.

    4. The iconic Keeling curve is a splice of ice core data on to the actual CO2 readings made at Mauna Loa. Unfortunately, the 2 curves did not meet up. The ice core values were much too high – the value for 1890 was the same as the Mauna Loa reading for 1973. So the scientists simply made an assumption that the air trapped in the ice was all exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped and they altered all the data by 83 years. In a typical pro-CAGW exercise in circular logic, the scientists decided this must be correct because it produced a nice continuous curve.

    5. The scientific archive contains over 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 concentrations in the air, dating back to the early 1800s. These were made by the best scientists of the day using methods still employed today in disciplines other than climate research. From the 1850s the methods were accurate to less than 3% and this improved to less than 1%. These readings show that CO2 levels averaged well above 300 ppm and that there was significant decadal variation. More than once, levels exceeded 400 ppm, for example around 1940.

    6. Studies of leaf stomata going right back to the early Holocene show that CO2 concentrations have averaged well above 300 ppm and did vary by 10s ppm over a few decades. In other words, leaf stomata studies are entirely consistent with the direct measurements of CO2 made in the period 1800-1957 and entirely inconsistent with the ice core record.

    I am aware that there are critics of the direct CO2 measurements and stomata studies who may have arguable objections to these results. But we need to beware of the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. The weaknesses of the ice core analyses are fundamental and are not reduced by any criticisms of alternative hypotheses.

    —-David – -please check your email :-) Jo


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MattB

      ok dave lets call it 200 to 400ppm… the point is that it is pointedly NOT a range that includes an atmosphere of 30% co2. Lets face it “we live on a planet that was a product of the orgins of the universe, so we’ll be ok if we blow the planet up” would be a pretty weak argument:)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        David Lilley

        Agreed you need to go back an awful long way in the earth’s history to get a CO2 concentration of 30% – perhaps to the early days of life itself.

        But the main point of my post was that it would be totally impossible to construct a theory of global warming based on CO2 using the record of pre-1957 empirical measurements, supported by stomata studies. Any semblance of correlation between CO2 and temperature would be totally trashed. The pro-CAGW brigade need the ice core record to be correct. But it probably isn’t.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Andrew Marven

    Rich girl plays scientist – what paff

    (1) Gina # 1 – funny things cool down when the insolation decreases
    (2) Gina # 2 – and pity most of the species around didn’t make the change too
    (3) Gina # 3 – don’t mention the PETM – shhhhh

    Maybe she should just stick to being dreadfully rich.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    It’s good to see MattB back arguing the same points which have been demolished year after year when enquired to illuminate the specifics of his argument. I’m still amazed that the argument constructed is that C02 = BAD. The circular logic which states that C02 is bad therefore increasing C02 will result in bad affects, cannot be attacked nor, defended with logic and reasoning. Every geologist(and greenhouse operator) will tell you the same thing, C02 is good for life. MattB, I absolve you of your sins. You no longer have to pay pennance for your enjoyment of the modern lifestyle.

    There are three parts of Gina’s article I’d like to comment on:

    Now as a recession approaches…

    Pay attention folks, this woman is a leader in primary industry.

    Please consider the following scientific evidence:

    Note to Gina, this is not going to cut it, regadless of intentions. We are in a propaganda war and the dialogue has moved on from your current understanding of the arguments. Your points, as valid as they are, are simply not going to ‘cut through’ as they have been co-opted out of general political(not scientific) discussion by the true believers. Our cartoonist friend has published excellent examples of false science that the ignorant public are happy to regurgitate in response to your arguments. You need to be refuting the refutations. Which means going deeper into the course material of Denialism 101.

    Gina warns the next boom has started, investors are already moving to Africa.

    That’s an imprudent slip to admit you have missed the African gravvy train, Gina. The point should have been expressed in terms of imbalance of competitiveness between Australasia and Africa owning to globalist socialism like the proposed Carbon Tax and Agenda 21. Never flag an admission of weakness in business, no matter how subtle or obscure the delivery.

    PS: look for the next Republican President to implement a carbon tax in the US. Think it won’t happen? Think again.

    That is all, let the name-calling resume.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mydogsgotnonose

    1.2 K CO2 climate sensitivity is far too high.

    It cannot be > ~0.35K.

    There are two reasons for this. Firstly the IPCC 33K present GHG warming claim should be scaled back to ~9K: it includes lapse rate heating, one of the key frauds.

    Secondly, there is no proven CO2-GW explanation for ice ages; it’s a bistability caused by a change in cloud albedo – the present physics is wrong. This also means the heating, now cooling, from the late 1980s was actually the change of cloud albedo when the Arctic entered the melting phase of the 50-70 year oscillation.

    This was superimposed on the 20th Century high solar activity.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    It’s not necessary for Gina Rinehart to be perfectly correct in all that she writes and says. Being less wrong is a very good start.

    Society has progressed because people got progressively less wrong about things. Many sought to be right and consumed vast resources, including time, before producing something; if anything. And how many of them we subsequently shown to be wrong anyway?

    It is sufficient to be less wrong to make progress. But it is necessary to appreciate that one is probably still not right to continue to make progress.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    The royal society was forced to formally reconsider its position in 2009 eh?

    You mean this position?

    Climate models indicate that the overall climate sensitivity (for a hypothetical doubling of CO2
    in the atmosphere) is likely to lie in the range 2C to 4.5C; this range is mainly due to the difficulties in simulating the overall effect of the response of clouds to climate change mentioned earlier (sept 2010).

    Fascinating.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    So, Joanne, what definitions of ‘explain’ and ‘science’ are you using such that this fits the bill?

    The IPCC states that 97% of carbon dioxide emissions are natural and only 3% are human. It has not been scientifically shown how the 3% contribution can drive global warming when the 97% does not.

    I suppose if you poured some water into a glass that was already full, you’d blame the water that had been there for causing the spill?

    Riveting.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernal

    Do climate scientists(TM) agree with Feynmann that it is the first obligation of a scientist to be more skeptical about her work than anyone else could be? Reading over the archive of the -scurrilously stolen by satanic fossil fueled miscreants and undoubtedly doctored- emails, clearly they do not. I have followed McIntyre for years and and remember his astonishment that the hockey stick work had never been audited in any way yet it was the basis for policy recommendations with far reaching implications.

    The implementation of these policies by kleptocratic politicians and fat cat rent-seekers has led to a new concept: energy poverty. We are supposed to learn to like it. Welcome all to the Hobbesian world of #occupyfail: living in the cold and the dark. Hey, it’s what animals do.

    The whole CAGH/CW/D (catastrophic anthropogenic global wet/dry hot/cold)(TM) edifice will fall unless democratic decision making is done away with somehow. The results of the implementation of Church of Environmentalism doctrine will be put down by voters who will not vote to be miserable.

    But the really real problem is that the climate science debacle is embedded in a larger scandal, the failure of current scientific practices to produce reproducible results.You want a link? As Phil Jones would say, “Find it yourself.” That is an outcome of the way science is funded. You start with a hypothesis; you concoct a crisis narrative; somebody writes a book: Paul Ehrlich; Algore; you enlist the help of media screamers because they can always use a good crisis;you yell at politicians and they throw somebody else’s money at it. Maybe NatGeo could do a bit on how these animals feed. Cheers


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    The atmosphere currently has <0.04% CO2, in former times it was up to 30%. Six of the six great ice ages formed at a time when atmospheric carbon dioxide was far higher than now. Clearly, this did not drive warming.

    Ice cores from Antarctica show that atmospheric CO2 increases around 800 years after natural events of warming i.e. natural warming drives carbon dioxide emissions, not the inverse.

    What does ‘drives’ warming even mean? As far as I can tell it’s what is known as a ‘strawman’ ie Pretend that the science claims a rise in temperature always follows a rise in CO2 and then point to the 800yr lag. voilah, CAGW disproven! Why can’t everyone see this blindingly obvious fact?!

    Joanne, can you explain how the lag, which was essentially predicted by the science, somehow disproves the science? I await with baited breath


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Tristan, your breath must be baited with worms…


      Report this

      00

    • #
      wes george

      What does ‘drives’ warming even mean? As far as I can tell it’s what is known as a ‘strawman’ ie Pretend that the science claims a rise in temperature always follows a rise in CO2…

      This is the first example I’ve ever seen of someone trying to defend AGW by claiming The Team doesn’t claim temperatures will rise as atmospheric CO2 levels increase. We’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel here, folks.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Bated ? Baited ?


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Excellent – should be copied and sent to every politician.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Tristan, people do not bait their breath while they wait. But while you are waiting would you care to critically look at the material in the site below and provide evidence of any inaccuracies you find contained therein.

    The Myth of Global Warming -

    http://thecrowhouse.com/gw.html

    Climategate – Hackers Expose The Climate Change Fraud

    A Cool Look At Global Warming (pdf – right click and ‘save as’)

    700 Japanese Scientists Discredit Man Made Global Warming Fears

    Professor Ian Plimer reignites climate change debate

    The Global Warming Hoax

    John Coleman slams global warming (1 of 4)

    Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud

    Another Global Warming Hoax exposed

    Another scientist comes out against global warming

    Global Warming Hoax, Planned in 1961

    Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data

    Global Warming Hoax

    Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming

    Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze

    Reality Deniers Claim Missing Global Warming Heat is “Hiding”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    But some influential people are missing the message: Harrison Ford goes to the Temple of Doom.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Yes, but everybody has to be somewhere, and being somewhere where Champagne and caviar is being dispensed, is often better than being somewhere else, where it is not.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    An interesting thread this. As others have commented, the troll activity has been unusually high.

    Proof positive I think, that it is all about the money. It is all about sponsorship and patronage.

    And when influential people start to see through the scam, or if they have been party to it, start to see it all unravelling, then that is the time the scientists will have reached their use-by date and will be superfluous to requirements.

    And that also applies to any students who have happily viewed a climate career as a money tree. And that is why the troll activity has been so high. Jo has poked a stick into the termite nest.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Jim Barker

      Are you implying that the Trolls are being paid? I wondered how much enjoyment blather gave them!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        No Jim, I didn’t intend to imply that they were being paid directly. If they were, one of them would have let something slip at some stage, and I and others have been watching for that.

        I was implying that a whole lot of students have chosen to go into Climate science (with a small “s”) in the expectation that they will be on a gravy train for life. They now realise that the train had left the platform long before they arrived at the station forecourt.

        I actually feel sorry for them. Climate activism doesn’t equip them to be able to do much else, least of all any job that requires tolerance and balanced judgement.

        Coming to sites like this obviously gives them somewhere to vent.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      brc

      I actually think most of the trolls started out trying to convert people to their beliefs.

      Now it’s more about not letting their worldview collapse. Most of the arguments seem to me to be shoring up their own beliefs rather than trying to convince people.

      Occasionally a new troll pops up here or elsewhere, tries out the old talking points and leaves without convincing people. It’s quite funny when they try old, refuted arguments like ‘but but the hockey stick is still sound science’ or start a sentence with ‘the models say’.

      I don’t think the level of true believers you get here are on the gravy train or hoping to be. Most of those won’t have anything to do with a site that’s not heavily censored.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      wes george

      Rereke, trolls, what trolls?

      Oh, you mean Johnny, catamon/tristan, and Matt? I’d hardly call that an infestation, more like a couple of Christmas beetles jammed in Jo Nova’s speeding ute’s grill. Nothing a good hosing can’t clean up.

      But I wonder if troll is the right word? After all, these blokes are regulars around here. I think of them as more like an Occupy Nova protest. They represent the 99% of, well, something or other. Spirit fingers, spirit fingers!

      Johnny is definitely the Occupy Nova leader (the guy with a pocket-full double D batteries for the bullhorn is always the leader). He’s old bloke, the one who dropped out of uni in the 1970′s because he was such a revolutionary he refused to wear shoes to lectures, had long hair and listened to Rock n Roll. What an individualist!

      catamite/tristan is actually the same person, an overweight emo located in some westie suburb who has “identity” issues, which because he/she is underage is inappropriate for further discussion. Matt is also an overweight teenager, but not affiliated with catamon/tristan.

      Of course, I could be wrong, but I’m giving these kids the benefit of the doubt. To assume they have finished their education and are fully functional adults would be a far less charitable assessment.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Tristan

        Waiting for our even-handed mods. [snip]

        [why do we have to be "even-handed?"]ED


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Catamon

        catamite/tristan is actually the same person

        Fine Wes, you have made an assertion. Reasons, or just pointless ad hom??

        Come on little one, dig it deeper!!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          wes george

          Really now, Catamon, would it matter if you two are separate people?

          Your comments average about 12 to 24 words, often in incomplete sentence, always derisive or snarky. Neither of you dare make a argument out of fear of being refuted. You both stick entirely to one-liners, it’s not like you’ve developed distinct personalities for yourselves. Individuals you might be, but as online entities you’re simply frighten little clones who indistinguishably share the same style and groupthink. You’re not here for rational debate but to scatter random chirps of disapproval.

          It’s as if you think visually rather than rhetorically or rationally. As if you don’t care what you say, but rather what the how the overall distribution of dissent in the thread looks during a rapid scroll down…that’s why I think you’re gen Z. You have an Xbox first shooter mentality with an attention span to match.

          All that’s fine. It’s a free WWW. I guess I just miss the good old days of the climate debate back in, say 2005-09, before Climategate, when intelligent and passionate real people could still in good faith rationally believe in CAGW and put up some damn good arguments, with real reasoning to back it up. All those people have long left the debate and we’re left with one-line snipers, void of argument, so afraid of their own shadow they don’t even cast one.


          Report this

          00

  • #

    Every year about this time, there a spate of alarmist ‘official’ statements originating in the northern hemisphere. Here is Australia, we are having one of the coldest Decembers ever. AGW stuff is seen as an irrelevant joke by most people. Maybe those alarmist things are somehow related to a big free-loaders party (mostly at taxpayers expense, no doubt) in Durban. It will flop like the one in Copenhagen did.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Good enough for government work and a potential template for explanation of various Canberra projects ?

    Check out “Just Fooling, We Had No Idea What We Were Doing”

    at

    http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2011/12/just-fooling-we-had-no-idea-what-we-were-doing.html

    and the comments!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom

    “So as far as i’m concerned we should tax her till she squeals.” That tells you everything you need to know about Catamon, JB, MattB, Tristan and the other trolls who are thankfully helping to drive up traffic on Australia’s most popular climate sceptic site. None of them has a real job in the productive economy and they all have strong political objections to our economic system. The hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature was designed by people like them to achieve a purely political objective. More than anything else, that is what is now becoming crystal clear.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Have to say to MattB and John that your interest in engaging on the science is good!

    Unfortunately its pretty clear that the Sun causes about 85% of the long term (>100 years) variance in the temperature record, and by statistical difference the residuals are consistent with a long timebase 2XCO2 around 0.7 C. Which itself is consistent with satellite measurements for short term forcing.

    Sub-century timeframes you do get strong effects from oceanic cycles, particularly the PDO and AMO, so my preference is long term analysis of the temperature record to reduce their statistical significance.

    Of course the biggest problem with the high CO2 climate sensitivity hypothesis is why has the temperature record diverged from the pCO2 concentration rise in the last decade or so? The solar + low sensitivity hypothesis fits this perfectly. That’s all you can ask of science…which hypothesis fits the data and which doesn’t. The solar + low sensitivity hypothesis does, the high sensitivity hypothesis does not.

    Sorry guys.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MattB

      we shall see… but that;s not what Gina said. Rather she listed points 1-10 from http://www.crapargumentsagainstglobalwarming.com and that is what this thread is discussing.

      I enjoy climate science, I like the debates here, there are certainly one or two points that I think are highly interesting and look forward to where science takes them, and I learned about them here. I do also believe that there are a whole heap of ideological nutters involved on both sides.

      The point of this thread, however, is that Gina’s 1-10 are just a collection of garbled rubbish “look there’s a bear” distractions that don;t stand up to any sort of rigorous (or even haphazard like mine) analysis.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Hi KeithH

    Your comment that “the carbon dioxide given off to the air in the combustion process has raised the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration by some 40% since the inception of the Industrial Revolution” is one I have seen frequently and has a logical basis that I’m not sure is actually supported by basic quantification analysis.

    I know that this is an accepted part of the “catechism” but we have to come back to the 3% – 95% ratio that suggests that nature is the largest factor in the CO2 equation.

    If human origin CO2 is 3% of all CO2 then a basic analysis suggests that human CO2 is as important as the error measurements in the estimation of Natural Origin CO2.

    CO2 changes due to such hidden and poorly quantifiable sources such as ocean floor rends are “known unknowns”. They release huge quantities of gas that may take years to appear and put human origin CO2 into a minor category.

    To suggest that a straight line increase in CO2 levels is due to 1. The steady state of Natural CO2 and 2. The continued acceleration of man made CO2 output is again logical but fails the quantity test and the more important basic science test ie. actual measurement.

    It fails because there has been no accurate measurement of all Natural Origin CO2 as witness the failure to quantify sub oceanic volcanic activity.

    The two main points are
    1. Natural origin CO2 is not a uniform unvarying quantity.
    2. Sequestration of Human Origin CO2 will occur at the same speed as for natural CO2 but accelerated output of Human CO2 means that sequestration will be delayed and will only be in place after a couple of years, at the most.

    :)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KeithH

      Hi Kinky. Thank you for your thoughtful post and I have no disagreement with what you say. As was obvious, mine was a straight out cut and paste and I didn’t necessarily agree on every point, but I felt it worthwhile to share as it represents ongoing research into possible benefits of increasing CO2. Like Clive P @ 46.1, I’m surprised it didn’t attract more comments.

      Though I haven’t searched for the link again, I have seen recently that satellite imagery is capturing considerably increased greening of parts of the planet.

      I was further intrigued by a caller to the ABC Macca Sunday All Over Radio program some weeks ago. He was trekking in or visiting Central Asia and was truly amazed at the substantial and widespread varied growth covering what was normally considered to be arid desert.

      For me, it is one of the more frustrating parts of the whole CO2 AGW debate, that the warmist side always tries to present that increasing CO2 and/or any warming is always bad or dangerous. T’aint necessarily so!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi KeithH

        I didn’t want my post to seem like a correction of yours, just added material.

        I thought it was good topic and perceptive of you to have raised it.

        p.s. Most people close to me don’t call me thoughtful.

        Thanks.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      KeithH

      Hi Kinky. Thank you for your thoughtful post and I have no disagreement with what you say. As was obvious, mine was a straight out cut and paste and I didn’t necessarily agree on every point, but I felt it worthwhile to share as it represents ongoing research into possible benefits of increasing CO2. Like Clive P @ 42.1, I’m surprised it didn’t attract more comments.

      Though I haven’t searched for the link again, I have seen recently that satellite imagery is capturing considerably increased greening of parts of the planet.

      I was further intrigued by a caller to the ABC Macca Sunday All Over Radio program some weeks ago. He was trekking in or visiting Central Asia and was truly amazed at the substantial and widespread varied growth covering what was normally considered to be arid desert.

      For me, it is one of the more frustrating parts of the whole CO2 AGW debate, that the warmist side always tries to present that increasing CO2 and/or any warming is always bad or dangerous. T’aint necessarily so!


      Report this

      00

  • #

    In honour of EcoWho and the release of the Climate Gate2 emails, I shall henceforth desist from calling those on the other side “warmists” “warmistas” “alarmist” “ecozealots” “environuts’ etc.

    Because they ALL show traits of…..

    casuistry [ˈkæzjʊɪstrɪ]
    n pl -ries
    1. (Philosophy) Philosophy the resolution of particular moral dilemmas, esp those arising from conflicting general moral rules, by careful distinction of the cases to which these rules apply
    2. reasoning that is specious, misleading, or oversubtle

    1. the branch of ethics or theology that studies the relation of general ethical principles to particular cases of conduct or conscience.
    2. a dishonest or oversubtle application of such principles.

    casuistry
    noun sophistry, chicanery, equivocation, speciousness, sophism Every system of moral rules, laws, and principles gives rise to casuistry.

    Fits perfectly the Gaia worshipping CASUISTS with a cause.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      incoherent rambler

      I like sciolist ( the second definition in the link is my preferred.

      an amateur who engages in an activity without serious intentions and who pretends to have knowledge


      Report this

      00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Logical but complicated, BH.

      In the previously-dominant religion of western nations, Christians are exhorted to “go forth and be a witness unto the Lord”. This is called, curiously enough, “witnessing”.

      The best-known example is, of course, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which long ago had their name truncated to “JoHo’s”, as in
      “Who was at the door, dear?”
      “Nobody – just the JoHo’s”.

      There can be little doubt that MattB, Tristan, JB and their ilk are the modern-day religious equivalent of a cult’s “witnesses”, and their very presence here is their religion’s modern form of “witnessing”.

      As an interesting aside, the WWF now specifically refers to its “believers” as “climate witnesses” and even has a part of its website devoted to them and their stories of their “witnessing”.

      That being the case, it seems fair and reasonable to me to henceforth refer to these people as “climate witnesses”.

      Or “climwits” for brevity.

      Quite apart from being easy to remember, “climwits” rhymes beautifully with “dimwits”.

      Which seems so comfortingly appropriate.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    KeithH

    Because of the vast and variable universal and other forces at play which influence condtions on Earth, our climate has never been static, nor ever will be. Species which have survived over such chaotic climate history have done so by evolving and adapting to the new living conditions. There is no reason to doubt that will not continue to happen.

    We endlessly debate about “causes” (and probably always will) but what this whole current argument boils down to is whether one believes Man can either stop climate change and/or control variations in so-called global temperatures.

    So a direct unequivocal question to all the proponents of the (Catatrophic) Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.

    Do you personally really believe that Man has that power?

    What about it MattB, Catamon, Tristan, John Brookes and/or any other “believer” I’ve inadvertently missed.
    Care to give a direct answer?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MattB

      Keith, let’s get practical… the point is that we as humans want to survive. The fact that life on the planet still exists despite massive climate shifts in the past should not provide any comfort.

      Yes I firmly believe man has the power to keep CO2 levels within a range that is considered by our best understanding of science to have an acceptable impact on global temperatures and climate.

      Keith – a question for you… do you believe that man does not have the power/ability to reduce CO2 emissions to a level that will keep atmospheric concentrations at “acceptable” levels? I mean it is a pretty straightforward proposition.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        The point isn’t whether we CAN or not MattB.
        The point is, why on earth would we bother?

        By “we” I mean, of course, the great bulk of humanity who haven’t drunk the from CAGW Kool-Aid cup.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Jake

        Matt
        Every time it got warmer humanity thrived, every time it cooled humanity had a hard time.
        Roman and Medieval WP’s were very good for the human race, after the RWP the tribes in Europe moved to get away from the cold and misery, crops failed and eventually they overran the Roman Empire, which was over extended at the time but it certainly could not handle the extra pressure.
        After the MWP Europe suffered pestilence and hunger to a huge extent.
        Big population bursts were seen in the warming periods, nothing like it during the cooling off years.
        As mentioned in an earlier post on this topic, Hannibal could not have crossed the Alps today as glaciers block the way now.
        In the MWP Greenland was green and the Vikings were growing fruit, apples in particular and farming sheep and goats, possibly cattle. There was a reason why they named it Greenland.
        The only reason the Vikings could get that far was because the weather was more predictable and the seas a lot calmer. Would have to be and you will understand once you have seen a Viking ship, no one of sound mind today, with the current weather patterns, would dare to cross the oceans to get to Greenland in one of those, let alone continue to the Americas.
        In light of that why should we want it colder, IF controlling CO2 would indeed do that.
        Climate warming and cooling is natural and comes and goes in cycles. Has done since time began and will do so for all time to come.
        Colder climates and low levels of CO2 stop vegetational growth and bring illness and misery more then warmer periods and increased levels of CO2.

        It is well and truly clear that the sea levels do not rise any more then they used to for the last 100 odd years, plenty of observations that show that the rise is slowing down, so that is one thing divorced from increasing CO2. The temperature is not going ballistic. If the two were related and CO2 indeed the driver it is made out to be then natural variance would be outdone by the increase in CO2 and we would have seen a continuation of the warming post 1998. The ocean temperature is stable. All the manmade links and projections between CO2 and the effects on our planet and climate are being ignored by mother nature.

        Why do you and people who think like you want it colder and reduce the ability to feed the population?
        Why do you even want to control the climate?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        Matt. What are “acceptable levels”? Given the insignificant percentage contribution to the change in CO2 concentration we have made (3%) are you proposing that mankind does something to remove some of the natural contribution? i.e. not just cease being emitters, but start to sequester naturally occurring CO2 emissions. Do you want to see a CO2 concentration of say 200ppm? Or is 325ppm the ideal? Why is that the ideal CO2 concentration? What is the “acceptable level” and why?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Streetcred

        Matt, I firmly believe that you are deluded … “I firmly believe man has the power to keep CO2 levels within a range that is considered by our best understanding of science to have an acceptable impact on global temperatures and climate.”

        How exactly do you propose that Mankind is capable of containing the 97% naturally occurring CO2? And, the “tipping points” argument is pure and unadulterated BS, so don’t lay that down.

        This email quote is from one of your warmista high priests: (need to keep the context, Jo ; )

        Ed Cook #3253

        the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          the 97% is reabsorbed by the “planet” in the natural carbon cycle.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            Bzzzzt! Wrong. The 97% is increase in CO2 concentration. Plus the 3% contributed by mankind makes 100% of the increase.

            And the processes that reabsorb/sequester CO2 are not discriminatory. They don’t sit their going “Absorb that one. Nah! It’s anthropogenic. Reject!”

            Nature contributed 97% of the INCREASE. Mankind contributed 3%.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        brc

        Yes I firmly believe man has the power to keep CO2 levels within a range that is considered by our best understanding of science to have an acceptable impact on global temperatures and climate.

        It’s laughable that you think globally, ‘humankind’ can keep a wary eye on the global thermostat when we can’t even reach agreement on trading bananas. It’s weird that people like yourself can be so pessimistic about human impact on the planet but can be so optimistic that bureaucrats can solve everything.

        Of course, the very idea of being able to control the weather is rolling-in-the-aisles funny, but your ’cause’ isn’t the first one to come up with this weather – it’s been the bread and butter from work-avoiding charlatans from the first witchdoctors onwards. Given that many different cultures evolved their own raindances and similar weather-changing routines, I guess it must be inbuilt wiring into the human condition, like superstition or belief in ghosts and spirits.

        So far, so funny, but seriously – do you really believe a carbon tax is going to achieve any of this? Do you really believe that people are going to voluntarily – for the first time in recorded human history – lower their standard of living simply because someone, somewhere, asked them to, in the face of an invisible, unproven and highly contentious threat?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          John Brookes

          Yes, lets be fatalistic. It could be bad, but hey, we are just humans, and that is what we do…


          Report this

          00

          • #
            KeithH

            Sorry John. I missed you in a crossed post. Just to clarify.

            Was that a yes to my direct unequivocal question to all the proponents of the (Catastrophic) Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis?

            Do you personally really believe that Man has the power to stop climate change and/or control variations in so-called global temperatures?

            Or were you just replying to the post by brc?


            Report this

            00

        • #
          MattB

          whether we “can” politically is far different than whether we “can” scientifically. The latter is straightforward. THe former, granted, is a big ask.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        KeithH

        Hi Matt.Thank you for your honest answer. My simple question seems to have rather quietened Catamon, Tristan and John Brookes.

        Re your question: I don’t agree with the premise you set out. What is “acceptable”, who decides it and on what basis?

        Since I do not believe that a notionally small rise in a trace gas that is absolutely essential for all life on this planet causes any significant measurable harm to anything, nor any significant measurable rise or fall in mean global temperatures, it’s a non-question.

        You say: “The fact that life on the planet still exists despite massive climate shifts in the past should not provide any comfort.” Why not?

        Billions of dollars have been expended on the highly politicised task given to the UNIPCC to find a link which could be “attributed” to human-induced changes in the atmosphere leading to alleged unprecedented global warming.

        Even with all the gridding, standardising, homogenising, and other adjusting of the surface station data carried out by the most enthusiastic scientists already convinced that such a link existed, they could only find between 0.6C and 0.8C of warming over the last century and a half.

        In a world recovering from the LIA, that hardly constitutes being “unprecedented” and no empirical proof has been presented to back that interpretation nor could it be said to be a “massive climate shift.” Those scenarios only exist in the minds of the scientists lost in their virtual reality world of projections from manifestly inadequate, untested, unfalsifiable and unvalidated computer models.

        As for my own position. Since climate change is a fact of life it requires no belief! The null hypothesis still remains that it is caused by combinations both known and unknown of the vast forces that constitute natural variability beside which CO2 can only ever remain at best, a tiny factor.

        In view of the magnitude of all those forces involved I definitely do not consider that CO2 is even a minor, let alone a major driver. Man may or may not be able to reduce emissions of CO2 but irrespective of whether he does or does not, the climate (and the weather) will go merrily and chaotically on as it always has!

        Sadly, Australia and the world will be the poorer and the poverty stricken people of the world will weep for the money that has been wasted which, properly spent, could have made a substantial difference in their lives.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          “Re your question: I don’t agree with the premise you set out. What is “acceptable”, who decides it and on what basis?”

          In context it is quite clear that “acceptable” would be be a 2degreesC warming as generally agreed upon in mainstream science.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            KeithH

            The questions remain unanswered. Who decided it, on what basis and from what estimated base temperature, from what what date and/or year?

            Like all the various percentage “likelihoods” rampant in the IPCC Reports, the 2C seems to be just a random figure plucked out of the air to try and give some credence to the very suspect “science”. No one seems to be sure who first coined it.

            Acceptable to mainstream science? Oh dear! Would James Hansen be part of that?

            8th December 2011:
            Father of climate change: 2C limit is not enough!

            It seems the times they are a’changin’!

            Google ’2C limit of global warming’ for details.

            Dad’s latest rant to Durban is hot off the presses.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            MattB says..

            In context it is quite clear that “acceptable” would be be a 2degreesC warming as generally agreed upon in mainstream science.

            Matt makes it sound like “mainstream science” (you know, the knowledge bank none of us should really argue against, this is authoritative coz it’s MAINSTREAM) somehow discovered a threshold of temperature comfort for mother nature and her critters.

            KeithH rightfully asks “who decided on this 2DegC?”

            The answer my friend, is blowing in the Climategate2 winds.

            1053616711.txt-

            A Simon Shackley asks Mike Hulme this very question. Mike answers thus..

            This threshold (0.2/decade; 2degC absolute by 2100) is the most commonly cited in science-policy circles. The EU have formally adopted it as a preferred target. It’s origin however is less than obvious and it’s adequacy difficult to establish. And of course it also depends whether this is carried out to 2200 – the impacts of 4degC by 2200 is not the equivalent of impacts of 2degC by 2100.
            My personal view is that there is much circular argument here. The first GCM experiments in the 1980s were 2xCO2 equilibrium, i.e., 550ppmv (cf. 275ppmv pre-industrial). Thus much early work used these scenarios. 550ppmv is also a commonly cited target for no other reason than this. A 60% reduction in CO2 is broadly commensurate with 550ppm stabilisation (admittedly, the range is wide coz of C cycle uncertainty; but 60% is mid-range). And (again mid-range) 550ppm leads to about a 2degC global warming, which by 2100 is
            0.2degC/decade. Independent arguments for 0.2deg/decade exist for sure – e.g. rate of ecosystem migration – but as we all know (and have pointed out in our paper on external and
            internal definitions of dangerous climate change), no single metric is adequate.
            My feeling is that the 2degC (0.2deg/decade) mantra is as much related to the early mind-set of 2xCO2 GCM experiments as it is rooted in any more substantive reasoning. One might also point out of course that the world has been warming at about 0.15degC/decade now for three decades (since the 1970s) – has this been acceptable/dangerous?

            Straight from the horses mouth one might say. (as opposed to out of MattBs ar$e)

            Keep pulling ‘em out Matt, emptying ones bowels is a good thing.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        wes george

        Yes I firmly believe man has the power to keep CO2 levels within a range that is considered by our best understanding of science to have an acceptable impact on global temperatures and climate.

        Finally, Matt has said something inadvertently half-witted.

        The elephant in the room is the widely accepted myth that humanity is actually in control of the Earth’s climate. Think about that.

        Only a decade ago, if you told your mates you thought that parliament could pass legislation to outlaw drought and control the weather so that our children would live in a perfect climate, not too hot, not too cold, just riiiiiiiiight. People would have though you the village idiot.

        Today, the great moral challenge of our age is to give government enough power to curtail our civil liberties so that they might Godlike command the seas to retreat, cyclones to calm and drought be gone, polar bears to thrive, etc. Now the whole bloody village is full of drongos and many are on the payroll.

        “Our best understanding of science” is that humanity has no hope of controlling the Earth’s climate simply because climate is the most complex nonlinear system on the planet, not a 19th century steam engine that requires a screw tightened on the governor.

        So even if human activity is effecting the Earth’s climate, the fact that we have altered climate in no way implies that we can consciously, intelligently control the Earth’s climate.

        Down that path lies mad utopian fantasy.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          “Only a decade ago, if you told your mates you thought that parliament could pass legislation to outlaw drought and control the weather so that our children would live in a perfect climate, not too hot, not too cold, just riiiiiiiiight. People would have though you the village idiot.”

          They’d still think you the village idiot. They’d also think that if you tried to claim that is what people like me claim.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          KeithH

          Beautifully put Wes. Well over 60 years ago, if I had posed the proposition to my science teacher (or a teacher of any subject for that matter) that lifegiving CO2 was actually a pollutant and would eventually cause runaway catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, I’d have been given a huge “Fail” and/or laughed out of class!

          I try to understand and make allowances for young impressionable, gullible and idealistic young people, remembering that it was 35 years ago (1976) that the PDO switched phase and was one of the factors triggering the natural cyclical warming upswing. Given that most would have had little or no interest in climate until they were 18 or 20 at best, it follows that anyone now under their mid-fifties has had little or no experience of anything but a gradually warming (now cooling)climate.

          That is of course, apart from some few who may have been frightened as children by the alarmist predictions of an imminent Ice Age, ironically by some of the same scientists who are now predicting we’ll all fry unless we change our wicked fossil fuel burning ways and even more amazingly, allegedly caused by the same culprit, CO2 !

          I still find it incredible that so many have been “dumbed-down” so much by the unrelenting incredibly biased brain-washing by those pushing a patently absurd comic-book science-fiction scenario of Man being able to control or manipulate climate and/or temperatures. As you so eloquently say:”down that path lies mad utopian fantasy!”


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Tristan

      Humans can and have influenced climate and will continue to do so.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        KeithH

        Agreed Tristan. Many human activities can and do have an effect (such as with the UHI) on local and regional climates but not all of those activities lead to a change in the atmosphere.

        To extend the proposition that any or all of those effects have such a significant influence on a global basis as to constitute a major driver of climate change, is in my opinion to draw a long and very dubious bow.

        BTW, I may have missed it, but did you respond to my question at 67? I am genuinely interested to know what you and others think as I do try and understand all sides of any debate.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      BobC

      KeithH asks (@67):

      Do you personally really believe that Man has that power? [to control the climate]

      Well, I’m a skeptic on climate science but I’m also an engineer and I would answer in the affirmative — yes we could control the climate.

      The key is to effect some process that has a powerful enough effect on the climate. For instance, we could block sunlight reaching the Earth by injecting sulfates into the upper atmosphere (mimicking volcanic eruptions). We could increase solar energy capture by spreading carbon black on the ground (this is already happening inadvertently in the arctic) or dispersing it in the lower atmosphere. We could engineer other wide-area land changes that eigher increase albedo or absorption. Further on, we could use space engineering to create giant film structures that either block sunlight from reaching the Earth (shades) or reflect more sunlight at the Earth.

      There are any number of geo-engineering proposals that would have an effect on the climate.

      The common goal of these geo-engineering methods is to control enough of the primary driver (energy) by increasing (or decreasing) energy input and/or energy retention of the Earth. Do that and we would change the weather and climate. It wouldn’t matter that we didn’t fully (or even slightly) understand the chaotic climate system, or that we were unable to predict it successfully — we would still be able to control it.

      Do I think this is a good idea? Only in an emergency. (An actual emergency — not a predicted one.)

      Would there be winners and losers? Certainly. Would there be unintended consequences? Certainly. (In fact, the only way to create more social disruption would probably be to start another World War.)

      ************

      What about controlling the climate by making small adjustments in a small (3%) amount of a minor greenhouse gas (CO2)? To claim that we could do this would be equivalent to claiming that we understood the climate system (and could predict it) in great detail. If we had that kind of understanding, there are probably other, less costly, things we could do — such as re-directing airline flights so as to make maximum use of the contrail’s effect on the climate.

      However, we have the testimony of the climate scientists themselves (via ClimateGate) that they don’t understand the climate — and we have empirical evidence that they can’t predict it. Despite their complete failure to either understand or predict the climate, they are proposing we attempt to control it with one of the weakest “control knobs” there is — that has one of the most expensive price tags. (It also, not coincidently, vastly increases government power over everyone’s life.)

      It is instructive that Climate Alarmists almost uniformly reject geo-engineering for climate control, and push the least effective, most repressive “solution” available. This scam has nothing to do with climate, and everything to do with grasping for political power.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        BobC:

        It is instructive that Climate Alarmists almost uniformly reject geo-engineering for climate control, and push the least effective, most repressive “solution” available. This scam has nothing to do with climate, and everything to do with grasping for political power.

        The above comment is really significant. The “proof” of what is behind the “Climate Religion” IS in what is MISSING from the discussion. Perhaps we need to start a list of these “missing” items?

        Rereke are you already doing this perchance?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Otter

    You know, I was quite busy this past year and keeping up with these blogs fell by the way… but now, after 6 months, I come back to find that mattb and johnbrooks are no longer of Any amusement value whatsoever.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    but the public are getting this message:

    8 Dec: SMH: AAP: Warning on climate impact on Pacific
    Climate Change Minister Greg Combet released the report while attending the United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa…
    It also warns Pacific islands of rising sea levels of around 18 centimetres by 2040 and 80 centimetres by 2100 in a worst-case scenario for emissions growth and ice cap melting, and around 30 centimetres by 2100 under the best case of emissions growth slowing.
    The landmark report, Climate Change in the Pacific, covers three years of research by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/warning-on-climate-impact-on-pacific-20111207-1oiqu.html

    btw one good outcome from google getting out of solar is that youtube videos IMMEDIATELY stopped putting solar ads at the start of EVERY video…personally i haven’t had one solar ad since they made the announcement.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      pat,
      You just gotta love Greg Combet when he say things like this:

      ….. and 80 centimetres by 2100 in a worst-case scenario for emissions growth and ice cap melting.

      Here he is, the Government’s Minister For Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, implicitly knowing the Science, understanding the Science, ruly truly complex Science that the average punter has no concept of, but that’s OK, because he understands it on our behalf, and, er, he knows what’s best for us.

      Then he comes out and says the above.

      University Politics – Distinction level honours.

      High School Science – Fail, with the added comment from the Science Master …… “Needs to study a little more, sometimes prone to speak without having facts correct.”

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      The very same Greg Combet at Durban who looks like he’s sucking a lemon? And with even Bloomberg having an article today mentioning “you are the only idiots doing anything.”

      Oh, that Mr Combet…my local MP.

      Sigh.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Llew Jones

        “you are the only idiots doing anything.”

        Just occurred to me that Combet is about as intelligent as MattB or John Brookes who are all identified by its corollary “only idiots believe they have the power to change the Earth’s climate”.

        In the good old days these were the sort who populated our lunatic asylums. These days we send some of them off to do mickey mouse courses at university.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    the sooner this nonsense is stopped the better:

    8 Dec: San Francisco Chronicle: Bloomberg: Carbon Credits Turning ‘Junk’ as Ban Shuts Door: Energy Markets
    Dinakar Sethuraman and Natalie Obiko Pearson
    Investors are rushing to sell some United Nations emission credits before they become almost worthless in 2013, pushing prices to a record low…
    Enel SpA, Honeywell International Inc. and Solvay SA’s Rhodia unit are among investors in projects from Mexico to China and India that will lose their biggest market for emission credits as the European Union, home of the world’s largest cap- and-trade system, phases out so-called offsets it has linked to “windfall” profits that undermine the market’s integrity. Emissions-trading systems in Australia and New Zealand also will forbid so-called industrial-gas credits, compounding a glut that sent prices for the credits to an all-time low last month.
    “It’ll be a junk market” for the banned credits, Geoff Sinclair, London-based head of carbon trading at Standard Bank Plc, said in an interview in Singapore. After 2013, nobody will buy industrial-gas credits and countries that have yet to rule them out, such as New Zealand, are preparing to do so, he said…

    Record Low
    Prices for Certified Emission Reductions, known as CERs, for December delivery settled today at 4.90 euros ($6.57) a metric ton on the ICE Futures Europe exchange, the lowest closing price since they began trading in 2008. The credits have lost 80 percent from their peak of 25 euros in July 2008…

    Giuseppe Deodati, head of carbon strategy at Enel SpA, declined to comment last month on how it would sell industrial gas CERs after 2013. Enel is the largest private investor in HFC-23 projects, with stakes in seven of 19 projects globally, according to data compiled by the UN Environment Program’s Risoe Centre.
    Roop Salotra, chief executive of the chemicals business at SRF Ltd., which is set to earn 52 million CERs from its HFC-23- destroying project in Rajasthan, India, by 2020, declined to respond to an e-mail from Bloomberg…

    ***The industry is counting on new domestic emissions-trading systems planned in Australia, South Korea, Japan and China, said Xuedu Lu, adviser to the Asian Development Bank and a former Chinese climate negotiator.
    “Some people say just scale up supply and there will be new carbon markets,” he said. “This is totally wrong. If there’s no demand, your supply has nowhere to go.”…

    Price Lows
    CER prices may extend their slump as the credits flood the market, according to Assaad Razzouk, chief executive officer of Sindicatum Sustainable Resources Group, a developer of clean- energy projects that is partly owned by Citigroup Inc. and Cargill Inc.
    “The price impact would be that they would still have a market but would sell at significantly less,” Razzouk said…
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/12/07/bloomberg_articlesLVUHST6TTDT7.DTL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jake

    The ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER This one is a little different …….Two Different Versions – Old and New ……
    There are Different Morals
    OLD VERSION:
    The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
    The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
    Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
    The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

    MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:
    Be responsible for yourself!

    MODERN VERSION:The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his houseand laying up supplies for the winter.

    The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

    Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

    All TV station and newspaper journalists
    show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
    The country is stunned by the sharp contrast.

    How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is
    allowed to suffer so?

    The Green Party spokes person appears on the ABC
    with the grasshopper and everybody cries .

    The Green Party stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, We shall overcome.
    Green Party Leader condemns the ant
    and blames Capitalism and Global warming for the grasshopper’s plight.
    Labour exclaims in an interview with TV News that the ant has
    gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper,
    and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

    Finally to gain votes to win an election , the Government drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act
    retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

    The ant is fined for failing to consider how his hard work and preparation has affected the Grasshoppers Feelings and Selfworth Act and,
    having nothing left to pay his retroactive
    taxes, his home is confiscated under the Government Land Repo Act and given to the grasshopper.

    The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government confiscated house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn’t maintain it.

    The ant has disappeared to better climates,
    never to be seen again.

    The grasshopper is found dead in a Drugs related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of Homeboy spiders who terrorize the once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

    MORAL OF THE STORY:
    Be careful how you vote next time


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ullo ullo ullo,

    I see Greg Combet has threatened to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol unless it’s part of a wider agreement that includes major polluters.

    Notice how it’s only those 23 Countries I have mentioned enough that want Kyoto changed.

    Combet said this when he addressed the talks in Durban in the last few hours. (Thursday Midday AEST)

    Combet threatens Kyoto withdrawal

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      So lets see if I have got this right?

      1. Gillard forces through legislation to impose a tax that Australia was committed to under the Kyoto Protocol.

      2. China, India, the US were never going to join, and made that quite clear from the start (apart from the US who had to go through the process of getting it thrown out by the Senate to make Obama look good).

      3. Combet now threatens to throw his toys out of the sandpit because the other kiddies refuse to play nicely in the sand (as they have always done).

      4. And the legislation is irrevocable.

      Yeah. Right. Like this sequence of events all happened by accident?

      Well, those of you who have read what I have written previously will know that I am no conspiracy theorist. But if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it is probably a duck.

      This has all been orchestrated from the start – pure theatre for the masses.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Rereke,

        The Kyoyo Protocol was presented to the U.S. under the Clinton Administration, with Al Gore as the Vice President.

        They presented it to the U.S. Senate, and really, there was a faint hope that they might get it through, because keep in mind, that U.S. Senate was still controlled by the Republicans.

        It (only just) failed to get through The Senate.

        The vote was 95 – 0.

        It failed to get even one vote.

        Hence, since that time, the U.S. has never added that vital second all important signature, so they are not, and have never been subject to Kyoto.

        Incidentally, that reference to Clinton and that vote has been whitewashed so many times from the Wikipedia site, it is now a standing joke of mine.

        It’s there right now, but only an incidental mention, and with a much greater emphasis on George W Bush EXPLICITLY rejecting it, with nothing about that Senate vote under Clinton.

        If Carter 2, er, sorry, President Obama has even failed to mention it, bring it up, send it for a vote, get it ratified, in what is now a Democrat controlled Senate, you can see how much support it has, even now in the U.S.

        Absolutely zilch!

        As I mention in the comment below, is the penny starting to drop yet?

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Yes, you are quite right Tony.

          I was thinking “Clinton”, but I am so used to typing “Obama” these days, that was what came out – it has been a long day, and one democrat is much like any other. :-)


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Rereke, you’re starting to worry me! :)


        Report this

        00

    • #

      umm!

      is the penny starting to drop yet?

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      living in Canberra

      yes please. We should never have been a part of the Kyoto protocol.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    crosspatch

    “The four key pieces of evidence that Evans presents”

    I’d give one more. The people who maintain an “adjust” the global temperature database are the same people who produce the computer models that show AGW. Is it any wonder, then, that their data shouldn’t validate their models?

    The official temperature data should be managed by a completely independent entity separate from climate modelers and available to anyone for the asking.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Would all you folks please stop confusing the 3 to 4 % human activity CO2 compared to natural CO2 interchange per year with the 35% or so extra CO2 we now have compared to the alleged pre industrial level of 290ppm? Please?

    I’m not saying that the extra is due to us as we simply don’t know the natural sources to that level of accuracy but it is at least a plausible hypothesis. The Chiefio did a number on the C12/C13 ratio a couple of years ago so you warmbots can forget about bringing that up.

    I’m not a believer in the ice cores to any great extent for the reasons Jaworwowski gives in various of his papers so the actual level in pre industrial times is still unknown. I’d be surprised if the natural sources and sinks were perfectly in balance over pretty much any timescale.

    In any case water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas by far, there’s far more of it and it overlaps CO2 absorption bands as well as absorbing in bands where CO2 doesn’t. By increasing CO2 by 35% we’ve increased total greenhouse gases by 1% or less. Probably a fair bit less as the tropics cover a fair bit of the Earth’s surface area and are warm and mostly ocean. That’s the real scandal in all this hysteria.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Off-topic … there’s a leaked “Zero Order Draft Chapter 5 IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report” circulating which I mistakenly opened up. It’s a riot; largely trying to give the impression that models have skill.

    I wanted to see how the fantastic story ended … Box 5.1 Figure 1 gives a map of the depth of understanding of their significant climate factors over time.

    Unless I’ve misread the diagram, the chart shows that sea ice and snow albedo is a positive feedback; with a “high” level of scientific understanding.

    Speaking of clouds; there’s the Joni Mitchell response: “don’t know clouds at all”.
    So Kevin Trenberth will be looking under the Christmass tree for the missing heat.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    • #
      Mark D.

      Where is MattB on the subject of this story?

      I want to be the first to say “I told you so”……..


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MattB

        It’s a trading scheme. It is how they work. We have emissions allocation, if we want more we buy from someone who doesn’t want theirs. Reality is it would cost us MORE to reduce emissions domestically, so we would take the cheaper option of buying permits from overseas. That is how an emissions trading scheme works sorry this comes as a surprise to you.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mark D.

          It must be prophetic that someone decided to use the word “scheme”:

          a plan or program of action; especially : a crafty or secret one

          The news story says:

          That will be throwing away nearly $30,000 for every Australian, about $120,000 for a family of four.

          That is over just 30 years. Now I recall you are part of a family of some number do you have an extra $4000 every year to pay this back?

          But regardless, Remind me again what percentage is the AU output of Co2 compared to the global output?

          I can’t imagine that some of your less fortunate might just move off to some of those spectacular islands nearby. You know, less people are good for an economy…..


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Kevin Moore

          How much do the the permits cost to create?

          What is the creator of permits going to do with the money?

          From where was the authority to issue permits granted?

          Who gave the Australian Government the authority to contract the labour and productivity of those now living and of future generations to be the debt slaves of bankers?

          Is it lawful for one human being to contract out another human being without their consent? The Pollies have proved it possible but why do we consent. Is it because we are all dumbed down with fluoride and brainwashed by Holly Wood’s magic wand of make believe?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          wes george

          What sort of sick mind could think that spending upward to 52 billion dollars a year paying corrupt African dictators NOT to build their people electrical power generators so that a few Greenies in Australia can live a life of luxury guilt free safely deluded that they’re saving the Earth by assuring that the world’s poorest people stay living without electricity, is a good idea?

          Not since the Catholic Church stop selling indulgences has there been such a nonsensically amoral idea.

          Matt says it will cost us MORE to reduce our CO2 emissions than to pay much poorer nations NOT to increase their emissions by building conventional power plants. Of course, the fact that child mortality, disease, live-expectancy rates in countries with under-developed “carbon pollution” producing infrastructure like power stations, hospitals, roads, trains, etc, are huge compared to Australian standards doesn’t matter to the Greens of inner city Melbourne and Sydney.

          What Matt is really saying is that our morally-challenged government is willing to pay corrupt governments billions and billions of our money to keep their people poor and suffering and dying at rates totally unimaginable in our own country.

          The Greens are fine with killing people as long as it is done quietly in the name of soothing their personal neurosis over Climate Change.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    pat

    remember Combet already said:

    6 Dec: Australian: Graham Lloyd: Carbon links to EU, NZ forged
    AUSTRALIA has formalised its negotiations with the EU and New Zealand to link carbon trading markets REGARDLESS of what happens in negotiations for a global climate change agreement in Durban this week…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-plan/n8-carbon-links-to-eu-nz-forged/story-fn99tjf2-1226214564691

    SCAMSTERS…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jay

    “For 80% of past geological time, planet Earth has been warmer than today, with far more CO2 in the atmosphere. Clearly, this warming was neither irreversible nor catastrophic.” -Gina Rinehart

    Everyone here is aware that humans have not been around for 80% of past geological time? In fact the dinosaurs themselves died off 65 million years ago. Our agricultural practices and regions right now could not withstand an average annual warming of a few degrees in many climate zones. Warming for many regions would cause catastrophic and endemic crop failure, especially near the equator where it would be felt the most.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Streetcred

      Just think about those current expanses of cold wasteland that would be available for agriculture.

      What % of world food production takes place around the equatorial regions … google that and then reconsider that comment.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      wes george

      Nuh, uh. I saw a movie once and cave men (they had haute babes too) were fighting dinosaurs. Which goes to show that human and dinosaurs can live in a warmer world together, if not in total peace, dude.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      J says…

      Warming for many regions would cause catastrophic and endemic crop failure, especially near the equator where it would be felt the most.

      Sounds like J is putting forward an opinion.

      Warming in the 21st Century will manifest itself mainly in the higher lattitudes (especially northern lattitudes), mainly in winter and mainly in the daily minimums.

      J needs to read chapter 10 of the IPCC AR4, specifically 10.3.2.1 and Fig.10.6
      Once he has read it, he may not be so alarmed about “catastrophic and endemic crop failure” in the tropical regions.

      Hey J, do you hook on an A Frame sign that reads “The World Will End” and walkabout city streets on your holidays?


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Yes, a poignant appraisement by Gina…two drafts!

    I see there is a sprinkling of wealth envy on this page. I doubt that the scythes slashing here will hardly effect the momentum which has a very strong foundation. The battle is not over.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Tristian; you are an idiot “science predicts the lag” … ROFL !!!

    Exactly how does science “prove” the lag? …. That is the question that requires answering …

    In short 800 years for the effects of what is happening on a daily basis to show up …. complete bollix !!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    As for IPCC scientific experts .. This is just one of many “so called experts” …

    Richard Klein, now a Dutch geography professor is a classic example. In 1992, Klein turned 23, completed a Masters degree and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, at the tender age of 25, he found himself serving as an IPCC lead author! Klein’s online biography brags that since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports. This means he was promoted to the IPCC most senior author at age 28 – six years prior to the 2003 completion of his Ph.D.

    Neither his youth not his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts. Nor is he an isolated case.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Here’s another example showing dubious scientific credibility: Take Laurens Bouwer who is currently employed by an environmental studies institute in Amsterdam. In 1999-2000 he served as an IPCC lead author before even earning his Masters. How can a young man without even a Masters degree become an IPCC lead author? Good question. Yes…he was studying climate change and water resources yet the chapter for which he served as lead author was entitled “Insurance and Other Financial Ramifications”. It turns out that, during part of 2000, Bouwer was a trainee at Munich Reinsurance Company. This means the IPCC chose as a lead author someone who a) was a trainee, b) lacked a Masters degree and c) was still a decade away from receiving his 2010 Ph.D.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    We wouldn’t let a company issue a prospectus without being audited, but we’ll transform the national economy based on a report issued by a foreign committee that no one has been paid to criticise. All these years…no audits on the science from the institutions like the IPCC, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, NASA or the CSIRO. No due diligence study has ever been done. The much hallowed Peer Review amounts to to anonymous reviewers, often picked from a pool of people who agree with the author in the first place. Classic Junk Science! As Deniers (and proud of it) we always felt there was something rotten at the IPCC when more and more evidence was disproving man-made climate change and they didn’t change their tune. If any of you still has an ounce of doubt….get informed…get the book any way you can, because I’m sure you’ll not read the serialized version in any Sunday newspaper any time soon.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jay

    Alright, let me try to explain in basic terms how the climate of the earth is being affected. For many millions of years organic matter from the species of life residing on the earth has been compressed through heat and pressure and turned into what we would now call coal and oil. This amount of carbon had been primarily locked away and out of contact with the earth’s systems for millions of years. This carbon matter that built up over millions of years is now being released back into the atmosphere by the process of burning coal and oil. We are adding carbon in the form of CO2 to the atmosphere that was for millions of years not a factor. CO2 is what we would call a greenhouse gas, this means that it aids in trapping heat from the sun’s rays as they strike the earth and thermally radiate back into the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases re-radiate the heat in all directions, some of which is back towards the planet. Therefore an increase in the amount of these sorts of gases, some of which is through burning fossil fuels and releasing millions of years old carbon, increases the amount of heat radiated back to the earth, making it in general warmer than before. Hence, increasing the average global temperature.

    Let it be noted: Water Vapor is the most significant of the greenhouse gases


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Jay

      Could I suggest you quit while you’re behind.

      You already made a total fool of yourself at #78.

      No need to go for the “complete idiot” award on the same day in the same thread.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      wes george

      Er, Jay. It’s nice that you read a high school textbook, Mr. Noob. But this is the year 2011 and we’re all pretty well briefed in the basic warmist theory. We’re kind of beyond the basic carbon pollution narrative and into the details now.

      For instance, you start off saying “let me explain in basic terms how the climate of the earth is being affected…” But apparently you didn’t bother reading Gina’s point #8…

      The IPCC states that 97% of carbon dioxide emissions are natural and only 3% are human. It has not been scientifically shown how the 3% contribution can drive global warming when the 97% does not.

      …or you would have explained how 3 out of every 97 CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is going to catastrophically alter the earth’s climate. Now that you have been alerted to this stunning factoid we eagerly await your next your next tutorial.

      Let it be noted: the Earth’s oceans contain 30 times the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Chris G

        Oh, I see where you guys got 3% from.

        You are laboring under the false understanding that CO2 has a short residency time. CO2 is only sequestered in geologic timeframes. If that were not the case, CO2 would not have risen from 287 ppm to 390 ppm over the last 150 years.

        Yes, there are physical laws regarding the equilibrium of the concentrations of a gas in air and a gas in water. These explain why the ocean has absorbed a lot of what we have emitted. Let me introduce global warming’s evil twin, ocean acidification.

        Apparently you are beyond the basic carbon pollution narrative, but not yet up to speed on basic chemistry, or math.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Chris G, before you get all worked up on CO2 residency times (not proven) and PPM math, why don’t you take a crack at answering Jo’s challenge at post 22.2 ? Many warmists have come and gone from here, none so far have been up to the challenge.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Chris G

            Why are you replying to my comment if you aren’t actually responding to it?

            How would you explain the observed ~35% increase in CO2 concentrations if the residency time were short, knowing that we are only adding a small percent per year?

            Or, are you trying to change the subject because you can’t?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Oh this might get fun, lets start with quantifying all undersea volcanic sources of CO2. I’ll wait.

            In the mean time since the challenge was the “subject” of a previous post, maybe it’s you that can’t? Maybe you could stop being a pretentious ass and answer it?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Chris G

            So, you are saying that the extra CO2 has come from undersea volcanoes? Is that correct?

            Because, that is easy to confirm or debunk if it is what you are claiming.

            Will you that you will admit that you were wrong if I produce information contrary to that?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            I see, you are an idiot savant. You know everything there is to know. Oddly with all that wisdom you have yet to answer a question. The question was: quantifying all undersea volcanic sources of CO2. I’m still waiting.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Chris G

            Again…

            How would you explain the observed ~35% increase in CO2 concentrations if the residency time were short, knowing that we are only adding a small percent per year?

            So, you are saying that the extra CO2 has come from undersea volcanoes? Is that correct?

            Will you that you will admit that you were wrong if I produce information contrary to that?

            Simple “yes” or “no” answers will do.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Chris G

            I’ve another question for you Mark D.

            KeithH said the same thing that I said, about humans being the cause of the increase in CO2, some time before I said it. If you are only interested in getting the science correct, why did you decide not to argue with him, and then later decide to argue with me?

            KeithH:

            “What we are talking about here is the extraction of fossil fuels from the crust of the Earth, which has provided so much coal, gas and oil to fuel the engines of industry that the carbon dioxide given off to the air in the combustion process has raised the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration by some 40% since the inception of the Industrial Revolution.”


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Because KeithH is better looking and because I do not get paid for which troll I beat up on…

            Yes it is that simple

            You still have not answered a single question. That is not good if you know what I mean


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Chris G

            I mentioned that humans were responsible for the increase in CO2 four comments ago and you had some objection to that three comments ago.

            Are you going to make some sort of statement of your position regarding that or not?

            So, you argue, but you don’t attempt to make any point. Who are you calling a troll, if you know what I mean?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            ChrisG

            You quote KeithH as saying “the carbon dioxide given off to the air in the combustion process has raised the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration by some 40% since the inception of the Industrial Revolution.””

            I commented on this and he did not disagree with what I said.

            Namely that it wasn’t correct.

            Yes.

            Humans put some CO2 into the air. The question is how much.

            The only other question is this: does it take a week or a month or a year for natural sequestration to begin.

            The residue of human CO2 after a couple of years is BA. or something unmeasurable because it is so small compared with natural fluctuations such as expression of CO2 from oceans during warming.


            Report this

            00

        • #

          Chris D.,

          There are many peer reviewed science papers attesting for short resident time for CO2.

          LINK to a CHART

          The 97% to 3% is from the IPCC themselves.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Chris G

            Is it that hard for you to perform your own searches? Or is it the case that you don’t like what you find; so, you really on people who tell you what you want to hear?

            http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CO2+residence+time&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

            http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=atmospheric+lifetime+cO2&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

            Meh, thousands of hits for each search, and your link showing maybe 20 or so claims to represent the majority. That’s pretty funny. I’m wondering why the most recent citation at your link is from 1983; kind of guessing maybe we know more now than we did then.

            You don’t yet comprehend the difference between a yearly contribution and a cumulative balance; so, you might want to come to grips with that before tackling anything more difficult.

            In any event, if you are claiming that the extra CO2 has not come primarily from fossil fuels, I’m curious to hear what your mystery source is, and what has happened to all the CO2 that we have emitted?

            Hey Mark D, same question to you if you are still game on challenging my assertion that humans are responsible for the ~35% increased CO2 content.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Totally correct ChrisG

            Human origin CO2 residence time is claimed by the warmers to be hundreds or thousands of years.

            Total rubbish.

            It is soaked up at the same rate as that for Natural origin CO2 but start of sequestration may be delayed by no more than a year, if that long.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Chris G,

            Is it that hard for you to perform your own searches? Or is it the case that you don’t like what you find; so, you really on people who tell you what you want to hear?

            I posted the chart.Because it is so handy to show that many famous scientists did research on the CO2 residence question.They published the results in appropriate publications.They continually state in their papers that CO2 have short residence times.

            Too bad your retort is dead on arrival.

            Then you post two links.I looked through the second one.It shows papers there that are also found on that chart I posted.

            Look at THIS ONE and then look at the chart I posted.Can you find it fella?

            Awww,it appears that your juvenile reply has backfired.

            But you keep going with more of your snotty attitude with this gobsmacking statement.

            Meh, thousands of hits for each search, and your link showing maybe 20 or so claims to represent the majority. That’s pretty funny.

            I never stated it was a “majority” view. All I did was post a link to a chart.Filled with many science references about short CO2 residence times.It bothered you so much,that you went google crazy.In the attempt to make the chart wrong somehow.But it failed utterly.Because you just fail to address the listed papers in the chart.

            It is so funny that you did this.Because essentially you ran away on me.With no real rational point to make.

            But you can’t quit while you are behind with more useless statements.

            I’m wondering why the most recent citation at your link is from 1983; kind of guessing maybe we know more now than we did then.

            The papers in the chart are also found in your google scholar links.You still have not learned yet.Since the papers in the chart has a quality not found in the recent papers.They are based on empirical data.The ones you appear to drool over are model based.The ones from Dr. Archer is a prime example.

            Then comes the “teacher” comment.Funny that you have never contradicted anything I wrote at all in your entire post.

            You don’t yet comprehend the difference between a yearly contribution and a cumulative balance; so, you might want to come to grips with that before tackling anything more difficult.

            Here is the abstract of the Revelle/Seuss paper you never read:

            Abstract

            From a comparison of C14/C12 and C13/C12 ratios in wood and in marine material and from a slight decrease of the C14 concentration in terrestrial plants over the past 50 years it can be concluded that the average lifetime of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere before it is dissolved into the sea is of the order of 10 years. This means that most of the CO2 released by artificial fuel combustion since the beginning of the industrial revolution must have been absorbed by the oceans. The increase of atmospheric CO2 from this cause is at present small but may become significant during future decades if industrial fuel combustion continues to rise exponentially.

            You are made a fool of so easily.

            Do I even have to point out what is wrong with your next comment?

            In any event, if you are claiming that the extra CO2 has not come primarily from fossil fuels, I’m curious to hear what your mystery source is, and what has happened to all the CO2 that we have emitted?

            Here is my entire post you have stupidly reacted to:

            Chris D.,

            There are many peer reviewed science papers attesting for short resident time for CO2.

            LINK to a CHART

            The 97% to 3% is from the IPCC themselves

            That is all I said.It was accurate and truthful.

            The IPCC does make the 97%-3% presentation.

            You never did contradict my post at all.

            Excuse me while I laugh at you….


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Sunsettotomy

            Thanks for the chart.

            Great stuff, showing studies and residence time for CO2.

            You don’t have to be a genius to work out that it would only take a year at most to get a new tree or patch of grass or kilo of new soil bacteria to make use of any “new” CO2 added to the atmosphere.

            Warmer fantasies that Human CO2 is different to Natural co2 are just NUTZ.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      And oil, possibly, is not dinosaur soup after all. Google Thomas Gold.

      http://coralvillecourier.typepad.com/community/2009/09/proof-oil-is-not-dinosaur-soup.html


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Romanoz

    Hmm.. the NYTimes has a different take on why “influential people” are getting involved.
    Naomi Klein’s “a-ha” moment came when she realised that the claim “that modest changes in lifestyle and shopping habits and the like can decarbonize human endeavors on a crowding planet” were a lie and that most “warmists” are unwilling to acknowledge the full scope of what would need to happen on a world heading toward 9 billion people seeking decent lives ie the overthrow of “capitalism” and “consumerism” – revolution!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Juliar

    Clearly Jo, the influential people inside the education system aren’t getting the message.

    http://www.grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-08-the-young-and-the-restless-kids-sue-government-over-climate-chan

    Quite scary. :/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    The young will find that you can’t argue using Common Law in a Statute/Admiralty Law court. The US is a Corporation as is the Commonwealth of Australia -

    Advance Australia Fair! – But Who Owns the Commonwealth?

    Is Australia really a Constitutional Democracy or are we a company listed on the U.S. Securities Commission?

    This document found on the web would suggest that not only has Australia been traded on the US Securities Commission but we are bankrupt as well!!

    http://news.rosettamoon.com/?p=35


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rob Moore

    Gina for PM.
    This is great news as she is the first corporate titan to speak out for the good of our country.
    The big four banks, the big two supermarkets, the big two ruralstock and station agencies, the big two fuel companies have all lost their tongues in case they loose govt favour.
    Gina has shown guts and intelligence- two rare commodities in the upper levels of power and thanks Jo and David for helping share this news. My friend Peter Spencer MUST have his case heard next year and then we will see who really owns these “Kyoto units”.

    I’m bloody sure it isn’t the C’wealth Govt!@#$%?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross James

    What if there was a peer reviewed paper the showed the following?

    1. Geological records going back Millions of Years on a land mass (continent) that has not shifted its location in millions of years.
    2. A correlation between its pre-historic climate and free levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
    3. The actual PPM measured for periods within those pre-historic climate shifts
    4. The threshold within the fossil record that shows mass extinction due to associated links of diminishing levels of PPM concentrations of CO2
    5. The threshold for proliferation of life such as forests, mammals and other pre-history flora and fauna matched to levels of PPM concentrations of CO2.
    6. Evidence found in the geological record of sea levels being more dynamic then what we were aware of.
    7. Evidence that dramatic climate shifts are directly linked to CO2 levels
    8. Tipping points are found within various levels of the PPM of CO2 that see the progressive stages of climate change stages.
    9. Proof that when amounts of free CO2 increase there is NO self correction. i.e. Ever increasing global temperatures transpire.
    10. Are ice-less global states possible (North and South Poles) within the context of certifiable levels of CO2 PPM?

    ABSTRACT

    Earth’s modern climate, characterized by polar ice sheets and large equator-to-pole temperature gradients, is rooted in environmental changes that promoted Antarctic glaciation ~33.7 million years ago. Onset of Antarctic glaciation reflects a critical tipping point for Earth’s climate and provides a framework for investigating the role of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) during major climatic change. Previously published records of alkenone-based CO2 from high- and low-latitude ocean localities suggested that CO2 increased during glaciation, in contradiction to theory. Here, we further investigate alkenone records and demonstrate that Antarctic and subantarctic data overestimate atmospheric CO2 levels, biasing long-term trends. Our results show that CO2 declined before and during Antarctic glaciation and support a substantial CO2 decrease as the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation, consistent with model-derived CO2 thresholds.

    This new finding overturns a former paper that misread and miscalculated the historical geological record.

    Received for publication 7 February 2011.
    Accepted for publication 13 October 2011.

    The Pagani et al (2011) reconstruction suggests that a significant and rapid episode of CO2 drawdown occurred just before and during the cooling that led to the onset of Antarctic glaciation, and the drawdown took CO2 levels to 600-700ppm – below the modelled threshold value for the initiation of Antarctic glaciation. The converse of this is that, in an ice-free world, atmospheric CO2 levels much above 600-700ppm would not favour temperatures low enough for the development of glaciers in that continent.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261

    Ross


    Report this

    00