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

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



In ice-ages, CO2 hides in the oceans (yes we knew that)

Antarctic Glacier Image: Paomic

It comes as not even a tiny surprize that when someone asks “Where does all the CO2 go in an ice age?” that the answer is “The Ocean“.

We already know temperatures rise 800 years before CO2 levels (Caillon 2003), and we know the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the sky. Moreover, basic chemistry tells us that CO2 (like all gases) will dissolve better in cold water, and be released as the water warms. To cap it all off, the deep abyss of the oceans turns over once every millenia or so (which fits loosely with the “lag” between temperature and CO2 levels).

But you would think this new research was solving a deep mystery, rather than confirming what most sane knowledgeable people would expect. Nonetheless, this may be the first detailed study of C13 levels going back 24,000 years.

CO2 was hidden in the ocean during the Ice Age

EurekaAlert

Why did the atmosphere contain so little carbon dioxide (CO2) during the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago? Why did it rise when the Earth’s climate became warmer? Processes in the ocean are responsible for this, says a new study based on newly developed isotope measurements. This study has now been published in the scientific journal “Science” by scientists from the Universities of Bern and Grenoble and the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association.

According to Schmitt, during the Ice Age more and more carbon dioxide accumulated in the deep ocean, causing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to drop. Only at the end of the Ice Age was this stored CO2 transported back to the sea surface through changing ocean circulation and thus emitted back into the atmosphere, write the scientists in the scientific journal “Science”.

Right then, but knowing that might muck up a few climate models? If it does, we don’t hear that from the press release or the abstract. Though there is room for the usual caveats about man-made CO2. The paper is behind a paywall, so comments welcome from anyone who can read all the details about the future of those climate models.

Development of Future Scenarios

“The new data have already enabled us to revise and improve a few theories about the possible reasons for CO2 fluctuations. Measurement data from the past enable us to gain a clearer idea about how the climate must have looked at the end of the Ice Age”, says Jochen Schmitt. And now the data must be compared with the results from climate models to verify and further develop the models. “In addition to the scientific curiosity about how our Earth functioned in the past, the main question to be asked is how the Earth will develop under the influence of man”, explains Jochen Schmitt. These are important scenarios for the future because the CO2 content in the atmosphere has never been anywhere near as high over the past 800,000 years as today, says the climate researcher.

Reference: Jochen Schmitt, Robert Schneider, Joachim Elsig, Daiana Leuenberger, Anna Lourantou, Jérôme Chappellaz, Peter Köhler, Fortunat Joos, Thomas F. Stocker, Markus Leuenberger & Hubertus Fischer. Carbon Isotope Constraints on the Deglacial CO2 Rise from Ice Cores. Science Express, 2012

 

h/t Junk Science
Image: Wikimedia

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.5/10 (55 votes cast)
In ice-ages, CO2 hides in the oceans (yes we knew that), 8.5 out of 10 based on 55 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/6skq66e

131 comments to In ice-ages, CO2 hides in the oceans (yes we knew that)

  • #

    Jo I have an advance release of this paper. A copy can be had HERE along with a commentary piece by Edward Brook of Oregon State University


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Well James Cameron with his new submarine should be able to tell us now exactly how much CO2 is down there and if he found Trenberth’s missing heat.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jay

    In Soviet Russia, CO2 hides you!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Fomerly of Oz

    It just occurred to me yesterday: what could be the biggest source of the change in relative concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is the current rage for nitrogen-filled tires (a.k.a. tyres). Think of it, nitrogen, the most common gas, is being removed from the atmosphere in enormous quantities to fill t(i|y)res. This leaves behind the nastiest gasses: oxygen, CO2, H2O, methane, increasing their relative concentrations.

    This is a crime against humanity and those people caught driving a car with nitrogen-filled t(i|y)res should be given a fair trial then executed, preferably by being blown up by schoolchildren pressing a button.

    Surely this stroke of insight (genius, really) qualifies me for membership in the Australian Academy of Science?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      DougS

      Mike: I fully support you nomination for Fellowship (let’s skip over mere membership) of AAS.

      You have made a massive breakthrough in our understanding of the ‘science’ behind AGW – this is irrefutable evidence, what answers could the deniers possibly have?

      I think a Nobel prize is in the offing!

      PS: We don’t need to bother with the ‘kangaroo court’ (sorry), just get all those nice 10/10 schoolkids (the ones that are still alive) to slash everybody’s tyres (or tires).


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Mike Fomerly of Oz

      And furthermore, CO2 fire extinguishers should be banned, just as was freon for refrigerators.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Darn. I was hoping to submit my new grant proposal for ‘Increased Sequestration of CO2 in Fire Extinguishers – a Reasoned Response to Catastrophic Climate Sustainability’.

        Then I was going to propose to the Bob Brown that his government should make releasing CO2 from CO2 fire extingishers a crime.

        Guaranteed membership in AAS and a Nobel peace prize, two birds with one wind turbine!


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Dennis

      You would certainly have to tread carefully or they might ask you to retyre.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Tim

      Surely this stroke of insight (genius, really) qualifies me for membership in the Australian Academy of Science?

      ——————————————————————————–
      Yes, but you’ll need to apply quickly – the gravy train is due to leave soon.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      paul

      Should have saved this one for april 1


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    “The new data have already enabled us to revise and improve a few theories about the possible reasons for CO2 fluctuations. Measurement data from the past enable us to gain a clearer idea about how the climate must have looked at the end of the Ice Age”

    That would be the time when there were not a lot of people around, and certainly not driving SUV’s and using incandescent light bulbs.

    “In addition to the scientific curiosity about how our Earth functioned in the past …

    Translation: “This stuff is of no practical application today, because it is just history …”

    … the main question to be asked is how the Earth will develop under the influence of man”

    Translation: “What happens today, must obviously be more important and dramatic than stuff that might have happened in the past”

    My takeaway impression is that this research went on a hunt for proof of climate change, and found the wrong answer as far as their funding providers are concerned.

    Bit of a bugger, that. Time to call in the spin merchants.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    What next, will some top Climasrologer, James Hansen perhaps, make the startling discovery that water vapour is a greenhouse gas!

    The excitement!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    I wonder if CO2 keeps going down into the mantle.
    Remember Lake Nyos?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BZuhE4WM0o
    A sub tour of undersea CO2 venting.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRYgeOMBlmQ
    “Rare Carbon Dioxide “Lake” Found Under the Ocean, Scientists ReportRichard A. Lovett
    for National Geographic News”
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060830-carbon-lakes.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Siliggy

      The other thought is that due to these undersea lakes filling up with CO2 the ocean PH obviously will not change much. So the ocean acidification scare goes back into Davy Jones locker.

      So what is the CO2 like in the depths of Lake Vostok?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    Bloomberg business channel has ticker: carbon credits sinking like titanic on european carbon credit glut. so virtual CO2 is obviously also hiding in the oceans!

    30 March: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: Trading Emissions Renegotiating Unprofitable Carbon Deals
    The company has an unhedged exposure of 11 million metric tons of Certified Emission Reduction credits, Trading Emissions said today in a statement distributed by the Regulatory News Service. They would be worth 39.7 million euros ($53.1 million) at yesterday’s closing price of December credits of 3.61 euros a ton on the ICE Futures Europe exchange in London..
    Shares in the company have plunged 74 percent in the past year as the price of credits dropped because of oversupply in the European Union carbon market. The shares hadn’t traded today in London…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-30/trading-emissions-renegotiating-unprofitable-carbon-deals-1-.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Which raises this skeptic’s question. How much, if any, of the present approx 2ppm atmospheric annual increase in CO is “ours”. In other words are our post IR fossil fuel emissions just a “piddle in the ocean” in terms of the ocean/atmospheric CO2 exchange which has been driven in the past by natural cooling and heating of the system?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew Barnham

    Arguably this is a positive feedback loop is it not? Along the lines of the following chain of reasoning: Polar caps will melt. Releasing methane. Accelerating warming.

    Am I missing something?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      You use the plural, that is – caps. Not having been to either Pole, I can only say I don’t think there is much methane involved within the “caps” areas. I will guess you are thinking of the release of this gas from the warming of soils in the permafrost areas of the world, mostly in the lands adjacent to the Arctic Ocean.
      See:
      http://www.supertightstuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/permafrost.jpg

      If you search the web using the “permafrost” and “methane” terms you can find lots of scary stories. Read them with caution.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    This makes sense to me -

    http://www.spinonthat.com/Spinonthat%20Blog/Blog/285B1AF0-2EA6-4AA7-A70F-A9FC360D8593.html

    It is often claimed by the AGW camp that because of human derived CO2 emissions the oceans are soaking up more CO2 than they can handle. This they claim is turning the pH acidic which has a detrimental effect on many marine species and in particular coral reefs.

    These type of scare stories have been prolific in the mainstream media and if you have watched any of the countless documentaries that have aired on screens around the world over the last 30 years or so, as most of us have, you will be very familiar with such terrifying claim

    The effect and therefore the purpose of such catastrophic predictions is to shut down logical thought through the process of induced fear.

    A simple response to such a lofty claim as “human CO2 emissions are causing ocean acidification” would be something like: “How do todays CO2 levels of 385 ppmv compare to historical CO2 levels?”

    The answer is that simply put, they do not compare. CO2 levels are currently at historically low levels, not much above plant suffocation levels of 200 ppmv and below. Throughout the history of life on Earth carbon-dioxide levels have on average been in the thousands of parts per million not hundreds. If current levels of 385 ppmv could really turn the oceans acidic destroying coral reefs there would in-fact be no coral reefs in the first place.

    In truth, the entire ocean floor is made of an extremely effective alkaline forming mineral rock material which acts as a natural buffer to acidification.

    Carbon-dioxide in the warmed atmosphere is removed by water vapour as it convects up to cloud level and is dissolved into the clouds of water vapour, forming carbonic acid. During this process the heat that caused the air to rise and particularly for this discussion, the heat absorbed by the CO2, is lost to the colder upper atmosphere at and above cloud level at altitudes of around 5000+ m. This heat loss is responsible to a large degree for the formation of rain. As the water dissolves the CO2 the photons of infrared energy are emitted and cooling occurs. This cooling encourages water vapour to condense into water droplets and fall as rain. When the acidic rain finally reaches the oceans either directly or via rivers and tributaries, the acidity in the rain water mixes with the alkaline sea water causing a reaction which neutralizes the carbonic acid and produces salt and frees up the carbon, making it available for recycling back into the organic life-cycle for which carbon molecules are the building blocks. This is why the oceans contain salt water and at the same time are teaming with life. It is a process which has been going on since the beginning of time.

    So as we know, current CO2 levels are only 385 ppmv, but as we also know, CO2 has historically been at levels which average in the thousands of parts per million. The oceans are the largest sink for CO2 on Earth. In the past they will have absorbed almost twenty times more CO2 they they are currently absorbing without becoming acidic.

    These assertions can be tested and proven valid by doing the following:

    Take two plastic buckets and in one place two inches of gravel in the bottom. From any good hydroponics supplier purchase some soluble CO2 tablets and a pH testing kit.

    Now fill both buckets with rain water and check the pH of both. Leave for 24 hours and check the pH again. Then start adding the CO2 tablets equally at a rate of between 5-10 at a time. Check the pH throughout this experiment and you will find that no matter how much CO2 you add to the bucket with the gravel, it will always be alkaline when you go back and test it. The other bucket without the gravel will continue to become more and more acidic however.

    But don’t take my word for it go and test it for yourselves.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      wes george

      Interesting post. I think he’s right about the chemistry of the oceans never going to become acidic due to CO2. But I’m skeptical of some other claims he made:

      CO2 levels are currently at historically low levels, not much above plant suffocation levels of 200 ppmv and below.

      No citations? No evidence? This seems to be a false statement on both counts. Plants don’t suffocate at levels of 200ppm. The very paper Jo’s post is discussing purports to show atmospheric CO2 levels as low as 180ppm during the last glacial period. We know that massive rain forests existed 20,000 years ago at the peak of glaciation.

      Obviously if atmospheric CO2 levels routinely fall below 200ppm during glacial periods then CO2 levels are demonstrably not “currently at historically low levels.”

      CO2 has historically been at levels which average in the thousands of parts per million.

      Suspiciously vague. Thousands of ppm? Is that 1,000ppm or 9,000ppm? No supporting citation. No evidence presented. I suspect that if it is true, it’s because he’s averaging in CO2 levels from the last 1,000 million years or so. But that sort of time scale is deceptive and of little relevance to recent geological history. A billion or so years ago there was no oxygen in the atmosphere either.

      Now fill both buckets with rain water and check the pH of both. Leave for 24 hours and check the pH again. Then start adding the CO2 tablets equally at a rate of between 5-10 at a time. Check the pH throughout this experiment and you will find that no matter how much CO2 you add to the bucket with the gravel, it will always be alkaline when you go back and test it. The other bucket without the gravel will continue to become more and more acidic however.

      Really? What if you started with rain water from a rainwater tank collected from roof gutters cluttered with decaying leaves? Or rain water in Shenzhen, China, a major industrial area? Or even just good old European rain water in London. Well, it’s all acidic. Just visit any old monuments in Europe and have a look at their facades. The basrelief stone faces of the angels, gargoyles, saints and kings have mostly melted away because the stones they use to build and sculpt with was mostly held together by calcium carbonates which dissolve over time in slightly acidic rainwater.

      So you don’t need no stinking CO2 tablets to make rainwater acidic because it already is.

      But what about the gravel? Just any old “gravel” will do? What if you live in area where the gravel is composed of highly acidic minerals, say like in the Pilbara near a Rio Tinto iron ore mine? That might effect your result. Or say you live on the Cliffs of Dover in England and use a hand full of chalky white limestone. Or near Tamworth, NSW and use a shovel full of decomposed granite gravel… Not to mention the size (surface area) of the gravel would also make a difference.

      This blokes’ credibility is on thin ice. And that’s not a good place to be during an interglacial period…


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        Wes Ge’orge,

        Enlightening comments!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Byron

        You`re right ,The experiment is sloppy BUT…

        CO2 levels are currently at historically low levels

        Appears to be supported ( just a graph , I haven`t time to find the supporting papers at the moment)

        co2 levels

        And as I`m a bit short on time I`ll have to get back to You on vegetation and the 200ppm CO2 , as I recall that many grasses go dormant at 180 ppm levels though I don`t know what effect sustained dormancy has , not good I suspect .

        Still a sloppy experiment though , Waaay too many variables and no where near as much fun as testing CO2 solubility in cold vs cool beer which is what I`m off to do now :o )


        Report this

        00

        • #

          The good news is that we don’t have to worry about the sun becoming a red giant in a billion years or so. I give us 50 mega years tops before we run out of Co2.


          Report this

          00

        • #

          Interestingly, I have been referring to this diagram for three and a half years now.

          It’s from a simple 10 question test at this link, and I first posted it in October of 2008 at this link.

          Oddly, it’s from The Heartland Institute, so straight away, the Warmists will discredit it.

          Look closely at where the above diagram indicates 300 million years ago and note how both the Atmospheric CO2 level (black line) and the Average Global temperature (Blue line) are both at at their lowest points.

          Note then how the temperature line moves upward to a high point, and note how the CO2 line also moves upward, but lagging behind the temperature rise. This is not a short period of time, but a period covering probably 25 million years.

          CO2 then varies while the temperature stays (relatively) stable, with that big dip around the Jurassic/Cretaceous period, while CO2 still varies.

          Then CO2 starts to fall and fall, while the temperature stays stable, eventually falling to where it now sits, both at the bottom.

          Now I understand that this is a pretty basic diagram, but surely it’s not wrong at absolutely every point along the way.

          It could also be wrong because it is from The Heartland Institute, but then we know how that rumour came about.

          You can see why they would want to denigrate Heartland if they came out with a diagram like this.

          Incidentally, as simple as that ten question test may seem, keep in mind that the prime purpose of it is to get people starting to think, and then to really go looking further into it.

          That’s what it did for me.

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          wes george

          Ah, so we are at historical lows of atmospheric CO2 concentrations if you look at a scale of 600 millions years, just as I suspected…

          But as I said, I’m not convinced that about 599 million of those years is particular relevant since the scale is too vast to see the details and correlations (or lack thereof) we need to discuss modern CO2 variation and its effects, if any, on climate..

          If you go back 600 million years there was no life on dry land at all. It wasn’t until 450my ago that the first true land plants evolved…So it’s not very meaningful to compare CO2 levels from hundreds of millions of years ago when we engaged in a debate about “modern” climate evolution on a scale of the last tens-of-thousands down to the next few decades.

          Warmists sometimes try to claim extremely ancient events, such as the Permian Triassic Extinction 252,000,000 years ago, are examples of catastrophic global warming due to methane releases in the ocean, blah, blah, blah. Greenland could melt in 100 years. Blah, blah, blah. Arctic ice cap will be gone by 2015…. But the fact is most of these ancient events happened over millions or hundreds of thousands of years. It’s simply the wrong scale.

          Moreover all data before even just a few million years old is pretty sketchy stuff and no one really has the kind of fine data detail we need to be relevant the next few decades of climate. Heck, even the experts can agree on what the bloody hell was really going on back then. Other than making a few useful broad generalisation, it seems to me that if you go back far enough in time you can find some sketchy event to support whatever point you wish.

          So the fact remains by a rationally meaningful historic context its not true that we are at historically low atmospheric CO2 levels. I’m not arguing that today’s CO2 levels are dangerous, but that to proceed with the argument that CO2 levels are at historic highs or lows levels is not fair dinkum… obfuscation we wouldn’t tolerate coming from the Warmist camp we should not ourselves indulge in.

          http://serc.carleton.edu/images/eslabs/cryosphere/vostok_ice_core_data.png


          Report this

          00

      • #
        • #
          wes george

          Thanks, Cohenite

          You always have the best links. How is that? ;-)

          I particularly like Scotese’s collection of continental drift maps through Earth’s history.

          Oh, and this is very intriguing. I never imagined this correlation….

          Agriculture originated independently in many distinct regions at approximately the same time in human history. This synchrony in agricultural origins indicates that a global factor may have controlled the timing of the transition from foraging to food-producing economies. The global factor may have been a rise in atmospheric CO2 from below 200 to near 270 μol mol−1 which occurred between 15,000 and 12,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 directly affects photosynthesis and plant productivity, with the largest proportional responses occurring below the current level of 350 μol mol−1. In the late Pleistocene, CO2 levels near 200 μol mol−1 may have been too low to support the level of productivity required for successful establishment of agriculture. Recent studies demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 increase from 200 to 270 μol mol−1 stimulates photosynthesis and biomass productivity of C3 plants by 25% to 50%, and greatly increases the performance of C3 plants relative to weedy C4 competitors. Rising CO2 also stimulates biological nitrogen fixation and enhances the capacity of plants to obtain limiting resources such as water and mineral nutrients. These results indicate that increases in productivity following the late Pleistocene rise in CO2 may have been substantial enough to have affected human subsistence patterns in ways that promoted the development of agriculture. Increasing CO2 may have simply removed a productivity barrier to successful domestication and cultivation of plants. Through effects on ecosystem productivity, rising CO2 may also have been a catalyst for agricultural origins by promoting population growth, sedentism, and novel social relationships that in turn led to domestication and cultivation of preferred plant resources.

          (wiley.com)

          A must read!

          Of course, I remain skeptical, as always.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      mobilly1

      Thanks Kev good find good post , Its like Archimedes , Eureka.
      Do the experiment and witness the result.

      Cheers


      Report this

      00

  • #
    wes george

    Shame on EurekaAlert!

    Since this a science website attempting to lift the climate debate, and many of us here are fairly well informed, wouldn’t it be more elucidating to use the more precise scientific terminology?

    In the big geological picture, we are currently in smack in the heart of one of Earth’s rare great Ice Ages. Yup. 2012 is deep in the grip of an Ice Age. Who knew?

    Geologists think there has only been 5 great Ice Ages since the Earth was formed. The Huronian, around 2.4 to 2.1 Ga.The Cryogenian (the so-called “snowball Earth” period) from about 850 to 630 million years ago. The Andean-Saharan, from 460 to 420 mya. The Karoo Ice Age from 360 to 260 mya.

    The last Ice Age is called the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation and started about 2.58 million years ago. (Wiki) And is expected to continue for at least another few million years, predictably interspersed with shorter periods of warming.

    Fortunately, we are currently in one of these warm period, called an Interglacial. Our interglacial is called the Holocene which began about 11,000 years ago at the end of the Pleistocene glacial period.

    What the EurekaAlert press release calls “the last Ice Age” is more precisely called the last Glacial Period of the current Ice Age, which is ongoing in spite of the fact we are in an interglacial warm period. Many more alternating periods of glaciation and shorter interglacial periods are expected before the Piliocene-Quaternary Ice Age runs itself out…

    It’s important to remember we live smack in the middle of one the Earth’s great Ages of Ice in order to fully appreciate that our place in geological time is, in fact, a bit unusual. Most of Earth’s past history occurred without an ongoing Ice Age and was much warmer than today.

    Sorry to be so semantic, but the most frustrating thing about the climate debate is the intentional dumbing down of the language by the Warmists. Calling the last glacial period “the ice age” is a bit like calling AGW “climate change.” It’s not exactly wrong, but it is a bit fuzzy headed.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      Spot on and well said, Wes,
      This is the only way they can “win” the debate- not only by altering the language in the best Orwellian fashion, but also by dumbing down and conflating the concepts to blur the reality to allow them to play fast and loose with the truth. So, please Wes, continue to insist on semantics- no one here would suggest you are being a pedant, just insisting that scientists act with precision instead of some post-modern “science-lite”.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Byron

      Wes ,
      Good post , all stuff I almost get sick of explaining to people . The other point I like to make when explaining interglacial/glacial cycles is that our current warm cycle within this interglacial is the coolest warm cycle in a long time and is considerably cooler than the holocene optimum , It`s always good for a bewildered “but ….but…but…that can`t be right !” to which I reply “Don`t accept what I say , look up interglacials on the internet , get a couple of different sources and make up Your own mind ”

      BTW no need to apologise for being semantic , the semantics ARE important , that why the warmists keep changing theirs.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bob of Castlemaine

      I agree Wes, to my mind this dumbing-down is part of a deliberate attempt to take inconvenient geological history out of the debate. You know, that debate we’re told is over.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Wes, it might be technically correct, but for the sake of the public, the term ice-age is the go -(historically, I would bet, the common usage of “ice-age” was in play long before the scientists stole it for their jargon). “Ice-age” is used in movies and books and is understood to mean that damn cold time with sabre-tooths and neanderthals. If I start talking about glacials and interglacials, I might as well be talking about a form of cake decoration or a type of window treatment.

      If the scientists were being less elitist they would refer to those rare long periods of lots of iceages as “Super Ice Age Era’s” or something like that.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Joanne puts it perfectly here, about Scientists using elitist language as if this is some sort of private club, and then scoffing at us when we ask for an explanation we can understand.

        I’ve used the analogy before, but there is an old Charlie Brown cartoon from 1969, and you guess which side is which from this.

        Lucy: If you use your imagination, you can see lots of things in the cloud formation…What do you think you see, Linus?

        Linus: Well, those clouds up there look to me like the map of the British Honduras in the Caribbean….That cloud up there looks a little like the profile of Thomas Eakins, the famous painter and sculptor…and that group of clouds over there gives me the impression of the stoning of Stephen…I can see the Apostle Paul standing there to one side….

        Lucy: Uh huh…That’s very good… What do you see in the clouds, Charlie Brown?

        Charlie Brown: Well, I was going to say I saw a ducky and a horsie, but I changed my mind.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        Joanne Nova

        While I don’t disagree with you on the confusion aspect Jo, this is nonetheless exactly how we got from “global warming” to “climate change”, and from “skeptic” to “denier”.

        He who controls the language controls the masses.

        Saul Alinsky – “Rules for Radicals”


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Yes MV,

          It is a constant battle.

          One of my colleagues, who was a boxer in his day, likens it to knocking out your opponent after a tough fight, only to then find that another enters the ring to continue the bout.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        wes george

        I respectfully disagree on this point, Jo and Tony.

        This is a science blog lifting the game. The terms aren’t jargonese. It’s not elitist language designed to exclude, but necessary names. We’re in the fifth great Ice Age made up of alternating warm and cold spells called interglacial and glacials. There is no way to talk (much less think) about it but to have the nomenclature available to distinguish between the three different categories.

        Obviously, the Warmists don’t want anyone to know we’re in a major Ice Age, not the hottest period since the dinosaurs or whatever.

        Jo pointed towards to a very technical paper which uses the terms glacial and interglacial dozens of times, although it also uses “Ice Age cycles” too. Baa Humbug provided a link to the full paper at http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/schmitt12scix.pdf

        *

        The last decade of the climate debate is a case study in Orwellian language dumbing down, not just because our elites treat the public as dimwitted, but also as a technique to keep the public in the dark. Talking down to the public is far more exclusionary then giving them the unabridged facts.

        Anthropogenic Global Warming was dumbed down to the meaningless tautology of Climate Change. (It’s tautological because the climate by definition is always changing.) No one can logically not believe in climate change. It’s like denying that there is weather! That’s the kind of muddleheadedness one achieves when one disappears vocabulary.

        Then the media culture shorten Carbon Dioxide to Carbon and today our political leaders routine call a necessary trace gas for life “carbon pollution” state-funded media propagandists illustrates carbon pollution in TV campaigns with black balloons coming out of AC units. Yup, they think we’re all Charlie Browns.

        We daily hear statements like “those who deny climate change is caused by carbon pollution…” Such a simple sentence stuffed with so many sly and malicious lies.

        But the worst crime the systematic debasing of language commits is in what it denies and steals from us.

        Language is the basis of rational thought. If the only verbal tools we have in our cognitive kit is the degenerated terminology of “climate change,” “deniers,” “carbon pollution,” “climate justice,” “Greenpeace,” “Earth Hour,” “sustainable,” “robust,” “consensus,” “expert authority,” “collective action” … etc, then the possible range of our thinking has been circumscribed for us by those who control the language of our national discourse. It’s a kind of thought control. And now that debasing the language into climate pidgin has really shut us up, they want even more power. They want to regulate free speech by parliamentary committee. They want to label skeptical dissent as either a kind of traitorous hate speech to be prosecuted or as climate coprolalia to be treated as mental illness.

        Ironically, it ain’t working because it’s all premised on the conceit that most Australians are dumb as sheep.

        I think Jo and Tony got this one backwards. Never talk down to people. Talk up to them. Talk at the limit of your intellectual ability. Make them reach beyond what they already know or expect. You’ll be surprised to find most people can take that hand up and leapfrog well beyond what you give them. Real public discourse is about challenging people to think for themselves and respecting their innate ability to do just that.

        The wisest old author I ever knew told me once when I was a wee student,

        “Son, don’t you lower the intellectual pitch of your work because you imagine you mightn’t be understood, people are a whole lot smarter then they’re credited. You’d be better off just hoping you’re clever enough for ‘em!”

        Then he sent me to the liquor shop. My shout. ;-)


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Wes,

          in a way, this was exactly what I wanted to intone, just that I expressed it ambiguously, and I just know that sounds like the old taken out of context excuse.

          That’s why I like this Blog so much, because anything that I think seems to be over my head, I’ll go and find out about it.

          I just get the impression that blokes like Flannery et al have this seemingly superior attitude of “I am always right, even when I’m wr, wr, wr …” (sorry, Fonzie moment) and “no matter what you say, my Science is better than your Science.”

          Sites like this are so good BECAUSE they make (what we are told is) complex Science understandable for us ordinary people.

          I’ll give an example here, a confession, if you must.

          Four years ago, when I started out, I was a novice. I knew (most of) my area of (supposed) expertise, but when it came to Science, I was still at barely high school level, and I really wanted to know.

          One of the first things I noticed was the Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere, and that water vapour was far and away the largest of those Greenhouse gases, in fact 50 times greater than for CO2. As water vapour is H2O, and is most easily visible in the sky as clouds, and those clouds, even whilst heavier than air, still float in the air then it made me think about that CO2 content.

          I know that any gas that is hot rises, and I also knew that with altitude the temperature falls by around 6.5C with every 1000 metres.

          My thinking at the time was that as that hot CO2 rose, it cooled by that same rate, and once sufficiently cooled, and then being three times heavier even than that water vapour (clouds) it would naturally fall back even closer to the Earth’s surface than those clouds.

          That was my private thinking, and not willing really to commit that to hard copy, I then had to go and find out why there was such a significant body of people who thought this trace gas was causing catastrophic warming.

          Now, I am more able to understand the whole process.

          I’ve learned more about ‘Science’ here at this site, and at Jen Marohasy’s site, and a couple of others, oddly, mostly all Australian, than from anywhere else.

          Because here it’s expressed in a manner that is in fact understandable.

          Those from the ‘other side‘ give the impression they are talking amongst themselves in a form of code that those on our side just don’t get.

          So, I’m on your side here. It’s just that I expressed it amateurishly.

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            wes george

            Tony,

            Don’t be so modest.

            You’re one of the people here that constantly lifts the game. Your recent deconstruction of the infinitesimal and meaningless impact of Earth hour a couple of days ago was a model of skeptical rational analysis based upon some rather specialist knowledge.

            My thinking at the time was that as that hot CO2 rose, it cooled by that same rate, and once sufficiently cooled, and then being three times heavier even than that water vapour (clouds) it would naturally fall back even closer to the Earth’s surface than those clouds.

            Well, there you go again. This might be part of the negative feedback loop that limits or even reverses warming as CO2 reaches its well understood logarithmic limit of warming. The whole of weather/climate is a thermodynamic system about moving solar supplied energy away from the surface back out to the top of the troposphere where it can dissipate into space. CO2 being such a heavy gas might form an excellent conveyor belt for this purpose especially once its absorption spectrum is saturated.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            mobilly1

            Tony
            Cloud seeding is not allowed, To much c02 released .


            Report this

            00

          • #

            mobilly1,

            no no, please don’t start the chemtrails lot off again.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

        • #

          Wes, this is different. Where a “Climate Denier” is so dumb it doesn’t exist, it makes no difference in this post whether people mistakenly think I’m referring to an ice age of the Great variety, or an ice age of the interglacial variety. I’m not dumbing anything down, I’m making it user friendly.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            wes george

            True, Jo, it’s far more subtle than “climate denier.” Which only makes it far more insidious. The day is coming when we can laugh at “climate denier.” After all, will the really climate deniers please stand up! But the Warmists still own the language of public discussion and that allows them to covertly direct our ability to conceptualise climate issues in their favour.

            Maybe it’s unintentional on the part of EurekaAlert to imply that the Ice Age is over. Or perhaps it’s subconscious confirmation bias working at some level. The proles don’t need to know the details and the climate mob doesn’t want to ponder the Maunder either.

            I can’t remember the last time I heard in the climate debate any mention of the fact that we are deep in the middle of a rather cold and anomalous Ice Age, albeit currently in a short interlude of cyclical warming. Yet geologists, paleobotanists, limnologists, etc can barely write an abstract without reference to this fundamental natural fact. Why is that?

            Howie is right….Its because 2012 being in the middle of an Ice Age doesn’t fit the Warmist narrative. It’s an inconvenient fact. It would reveal that we are well within the historic temperature range of the last dozen million years or so, and only near (but not at) the top of the most recent cycle of glacial/interglacials.

            It’s the insidiousness of stripping of language of essential vocabulary thats worrying. We’re all busy people. We use the language at our finger tips. Slip a little piece of it away and who notices?

            Pretty soon we’re all talking about “The End of the last Ice Age” and how we are in period of “unprecedented warming.” Nothing could be further from the truth, yet to make people even think about it is now doubly hard because you have to start by re-introducing fundamental concepts that have been lost to the language of the public debate. You can’t just say, “Dude, the Ice Age never ended.” Because they won’t have to conceptual framework to understand you.

            I’ve encountered climate pidgin many times over drinks at a party or barbie or a community meeting. Some one says something like, “According to the Experts the Consensus is that no one should Deny Climate Change is caused by Carbon Pollution, but Big Coal funds Denialists to Shill in Murdock’s media.”

            Where do you start? You can’t even argue with that, because it’s in Climate Pidgin. There is literally no way to rebut short of a several thousand word exegesis, which is the wrong format for communication at a barbie or council meeting. So you are forced to try to communicate with them in their lingua franca. Good luck with that.

            Of course, the person speaking climate pidgin around a barbie is blameless, ignorant, but innocent. It’s the only language set they’ve been given to understand the climate debate. What’s truly chilling is when our national broadcaster delivers the news in climate pidgin. That’s when I know the world they are insidiously working to create is a prison for our thoughts.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Actually, I am in the unfortunate position of being able to see this debate from both sides – and I agree with both, because this concerns a multi-faceted problem.

            None of the arguments are black and white, there is no “them” and “us”, in terms of secret agenda’s, wanting to take over the world, nor scientists who know all there is to know about planetary physics, but are being quiet about it.

            Wes, I accept you are correct, in that I didn’t previously understand about the cycles within cycles, and now feel I know more. But I studied Mil.Sc., majoring in Electronics, so well understand frequency patterns. So with your explaination, it is obvious to me, because I am predisposed to receiving that sort of knowledge. Thank you.

            And Jo, I accept that you are also correct, in that you are a Science Educator, and so are well accomplished at judging the knowledge level of your audience, and then building on what they know, to lift the sum total of their knowledge to a higher level of understanding.

            For my part, I understand the construction of propaganda well enough to know that you cannot defeat it directly by supplying the truth as an antidote – the truth is always more complex than the lies, so the lies will win every time. What must be done is to accept the lies, and then build on them in a way that deflects them to becoming more like the truth.

            For an example, during the ‘shift’ away from “Global Warming”, I started using the “Global Warming” on purpose, whenever it was noticeably cold or raining heavily. Somebody would inevitably correct me. saying “Its Climate Change!”, to which my response was always, “Yes it always does, doesn’t it?”.

            For similar reasons, I don’t refer to myself as a “sceptic”, because that phrase has been stolen from us and labels us as heretics. I now refer to myself a “realist”, because I have taken the time and trouble to learn about what is really going on with the climate, and politics, and a whole range of other factors. Taking ownership of the “realist” label in conversations implies that your protagonist is not a realist, and is therefore is therefore somewhere of in la-la land.

            And thanks to Wes, and his explanation, I now have a whole new range of ‘realist’ type questions to ask people who would promote the current non-crisis.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Howie

          I prefer the term “glacial maximum” to refer to the maximum extent of ice in any glaciation. So in the present Ice Age we have seen several glacial maxima and several interglacials, the latest of which we are in right now. I have to agree that the warmistas do not want the general populace to know that we are still in an Ice Age and that the ice is sure to return some day. Have they ever though about what a disaster returning to an Ice Age would be for humans and many other species. But the warmistas are now claiming that the warming the Earth is now experiencing will preclude returning to an Ice Age. They are also argueing that the so called weather extremes of the past decade are unprecedented. The sad fact is that a lot of people believe this nonsense.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Howie

            There may not be secret agendas but there are agendas- UN Agenda 21 for one. And the IPCC would crucify mankind on a cross of carbon if enough sheeples are duped into believing the AGW mantra.

            Ultimately the issue of AGW will be decided by Mother Nature herself. You can only tell a lie for so long and get away with it. As I’ve always said if you tell a lie you’ll have to tell another to get out of the first one and so on. That’s exactly what is happening. When we are told that the past decade is the warmest on record and then look at how the data has been manipulated to show that it was the warmest on record should raise a red flag for anyone interested in the truth. But the warmistas have no shame. They are not interested in the truth. What they want is to scare the pants off anyone who can’t think for themselves.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      John Brookes

      “intentional dumbing down by the warmists”

      Not only the warmists Wes, not only the warmists. BTW, thanks for the informative posts.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sean2829

    The carbonate cycle as it interacts with alkaline earth elements, Mg and Ca gets more interesting all the time. One thing I’d always caution is to understand that the CO2 is actually dissolved in water as Calcium or magnesium bicarbonate. It’s stable in cold water but decomposed to limestone and CO2 in warm. (It’s irreversable in warm shallow seas forming limestone deposits. I also wonder if the calcium cabonate hexahydrate that was recently studied off the coast of Antarctica actually involves the bicarbonate species. That gives a reversable solid phase to tie up CO2 in cold water that goes way beyond simple solubility calculations.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Howie

      It’s a little more complicated than you posit. CO2 in water forms carbonic acid which is a weak acid and dissociates to form hydrogen ion and bicarbonate ion.

      H2CO3=H+ + HCO3-

      Bicarbonate ion further dissociates to form hydrogen ion and carbonate ion.

      HCO3= =H+ + CO3=

      As you might expect the relative amounts of carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion and carbonate ion are dependent on the pH (Hydrogen Ion concentration). At low pH carbonic acid predominates. At high pH carbonate ion predominates. At neutral or slightly alkaline pH bicarbonate ion is the major species present. So in oceanic waters bicarbonate is going to be predominant. But some carbonate ion is always present so if there are calcium or magnesium ions present in great enough concentration calcium carbonate or magnesium carbonate will precipitate. Calcium and magnesium bicarbonates are more soluble than the carbonates. It is the insolubility of the carbonates of calcium and magnesium that drives the reaction. This is called chemical precipitation and is one of the major methods by which limestone and dolomite are formed.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Sean2829

        I understand your point but you cannot look at bicarbonate stability without consideration of temperature. There is an entropic effect. From what I understand, the bicarbonate form decomposes in warm water and can precipitate out calcium carbonate while CO2 is released. However, the Calcium carbonate that drops out in warm surface waters over deep sections of the ocean, get redissolved back to calcium bicarbonate when it encounters the colder deep water. That’s why you get limestone formation only in warm shallow seas.
        The Ikaite calcium carbonate hexahydrate is interesting is that it is a way to tie CO2 in a reversible way in cold water. The Wikipedia article on it also indicates formations are found in fjiords, can be associated with glacial run off and also high water pressures. I just seems that a reversible mineral solid phase sink that operates only when its very cold might play a role in tieing up a lot of CO2 during periods of glaciation.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Howie

      Sean said

      One thing I’d always caution is to understand that the CO2 is actually dissolved in water as Calcium or magnesium bicarbonate.

      This is nonsense. Ions in solution are just that-ions. Bicarbonate ions aren’t associated with calcium or magnesium any more than they are associated with sodium or any other positive ions that might be present. But I assume the point you are trying to make is that bicarbonate is the predominant species in the carbonic acid- bicarbonate- carbonate equilibrium and in that respect you are correct.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Byron

    “In ice-ages, CO2 hides in the oceans” ( Anyone who`s ever cracked a beer could have told `em that You can “hide” more CO2 in a cold one than a warm one )


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Hladik

    A good resource for locating such things as paleotemperature plots, the changing CO2 concentrations, sea level curves, etc etc etc is

    http://www.globalwarmingart.com

    Now, do not misunderstand: I am not a fan of Wiki (by any stretch of the imagination) but there IS a lot of good data there, including the original citations (e.g., Berner & Kothavala).

    The Scotese reconstruction is OK for general discussions, but is much to stylized for any real calculations (such as R coefficients … ). I could also recommend the limited data contained within GTS 2004, especially the Ediacaran data, which is worth knowing for the variability of the climate during that time.

    Hope that helps,

    Mark H.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    According to ice core data, sea surface temperature increases are followed (some 800 years later) by increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. So why would’t we expect to see increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations now, given the MWP’s timing?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      Does anybody really know what percentage of the increase in carbon dioxide is natural (eg outgassing from a warmer ocean) vs man-made (eg all human productivity)?

      I once asked a BOM dude about it, but he said it wasn’t important…


      Report this

      00

      • #
        • #
          Mark Hladik

          Hi Sonny,

          The answer to the question is not quite as simple as it might seem. Each year, gigatonnes of carbon (in various forms) go through the ‘carbon cycle’, not unlike the ‘water cycle’, which we all learned in school.

          An analogous process occurs with carbon; living matter dies, decays, carbon is released; some is taken in by plants for the photosynthetic process, some dissolves into water, some comes out of solution, some gets sequestered (temporarily) into biomass (plant life, carbonate shells of invertebrates, etc). And, of course, we combust some in our automobilies, factories, homes, etc.

          I cannot cite a reference (unfortunately — – someone post a frown-y face for me) but I have seen in several places that the annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 3% human caused.

          If I find that (those) reference(s) again, I will ask Jo to post, through her “support” link.

          Hoping that helps some, my best regards to all,

          Mark H.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Mark Hladik

          Talk about timeliness!

          Sonny! Go to http://icecap.us, and on 03 April, “Carbon Cycle Questions” has one possible answer to your question.

          Lengthy video linked there; might help.

          Mark H.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    pat

    apologies these are O/T

    39 March: Las Vegas Sun: Anjeanette Damon: NV Energy windmill program generates rebates, little electricity
    A year ago, a Reno clean energy businessman warned the Public Utilities Commission that if it didn’t set a few standards for NV Energy’s wind rebate program, its customers could end up footing the bill for turbines that rarely produce electricity…
    As first reported by the Reno Gazette-Journal, one turbine that cost the city $21,000 to install saved the city $4 on its energy bill. Overall, $416,000 worth of turbines have netted the city $2,800 in energy savings…
    http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/mar/30/nv-energy-windmill-program-generates-rebates-littl/

    39 March: UK Register: Lewis Page: Climate-change scepticism must be ‘treated’, says enviro-sociologist
    Dubious on warmo peril? You’re the kind who’d own slaves
    Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be “treated”, according to an Oregon-based professor of “sociology and environmental studies”. Professor Kari Norgaard compares the struggle against climate scepticism to that against racism and slavery in the US South.
    Prof Norgaard holds a B.S. in biology and a master’s and PhD in sociology…
    The good prof is in London at the moment for the “Planet Under Pressure” conference, where she presented a paper on Wednesday dealing with how best to do away with the evil of scepticism and get the human race to focus all its efforts on saving the planet…
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/30/climate_scepticism_racism_slavery_treatment/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    oops both are 30 march, not 39! LOL


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Well, I’m ready for Earth Hour. Let there be light!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Off Topic:

    Time for we sceptics to lobby General Motors to rethink their stand on Heartland.
    Me Dogs Gob have the following to say

    GM Dumps Heartland Institute, Will No Longer Fund Climate-Denying Spinstitute

    General Motors is breaking up with the Heartland Institute, announcing recently that the company will discontinue funding to the notorious climate-denying spin shop.

    Let them know green activist aren’t the only ones that can refrain from purchasing their product. In fact we are more likely to buy their gas guzzlers than some eco looney.

    Me Dogs Gob are still promoting the faked document as legit.

    Internal Heartland documents made public last month exposed the shocking revelation of Heartland’s plans to deceive schoolchildren about climate science, .

    me thinks their cruisin’ for a bruisin’.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    get this to everyone u know. post on every forum u can. the CAGW party is over:

    31 March: Bloomberg: Ewa Krukowska: Carbon ‘Like Titanic’ Sinking on EU Permit Glut
    The plunge in European Union carbon permits is putting prices on course for their longest-ever decline and shows no sign of ending as member states wrangle over curbing a glut in the market.
    EU allowances for December fell 5.2 percent this year, extending a streak of quarterly losses stretching back to March 2011. Prices may drop a further 50 percent and lawmakers will probably fail to cut supply in the world’s largest emissions market through a so-called set-aside process, according to UBS AG…
    “Unless EU governments come up with a surprise decision to strongly support the set-aside or ambitious mid-term emission- reduction targets, I don’t see prices moving up much over the coming months,” Tuomas Rautanen, head of regulatory affairs and consulting at First Climate in Zurich, said by e-mail…
    Prices will probably fall to about 3 euros before lawmakers are able to tighten the bloc’s emissions targets, a process that may take “years,” Per Lekander, UBS’s Paris-based global head of utilities research, said in a phone interview yesterday.
    “It’s not that I’m skeptical on the set-aside, it’s just not going to happen,” he said. “It’s going to get blocked.” Utilities including RWE AG (RWE), based in Essen, Germany, will probably buy allowances in high volume should prices drop near 3 euros, the analyst said…
    “It’s a big challenge to re-design the ETS and make it a system that would reward both energy efficiency and pure emission reductions, but you can’t avoid it,” he said today by phone. “It’s like being on the Titanic and seeing the iceberg in front of you; either you make a U-turn or crash.” …
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-30/carbon-like-titanic-sinking-on-eu-permit-glut.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Global warming a chilling and interesting perspective.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

    A Brief History of Ice Ages and Warming
    Global warming started long before the “Industrial Revolution” and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age– a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.

    Earth’s climate and the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze.

    Approximately every 100,000 years Earth’s climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning.

    Global warming during Earth’s current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and diversity of all life. For example:

    Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.

    By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America from Asia.

    Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth’s temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice……….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Howie

    Perhaps I’ve missed something here. If the concentration of atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm at the beginning of the pre-industrial era, then what was the concentration during the last glacial maximum which was about 20 thousand years ago. It surely must have been much lower then.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      • #
        Howie

        That’s pretty low for CO2. Supposedly plants don’t do too well at that low a concentration. Wonder what fed all the ice age herbivores such as wooly mammoths, bison etc.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          Yes, Howie, you are right.

          Most of what we call green plants (trees, shrubs, grass etc) start to suffer extreme stress below 200 ppm, and most would be stunted and dying at 180 ppm. Which is of itself exceptionally good reason to question the current interpretation of ice core samples – at least for fairly modern times, geologically speaking.

          As it turns out the claim of a “stable” level of 280 ppm in pre-industrial times is most likely a contrived artifact of the global warming crowd – just like so many difficult-to-explain “discrepancies”. Here are links to two articles where the notion of “stable CO2 levels” is rigorously challenged.

          http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
          http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts

          If one correlates these earlier measured fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 to global temperature fluctuations, one sees what one would expect to see, and indeed, what we are seeing today: that increasing ocean temperatures give rise to increasing atmospheric CO2 (outgassing), and decreasing ocean temperatures give rise to decreasing atmospheric CO2 (absorption), perfectly in accordance with Henry’s Law.

          These early claims of fluctuating CO2 levels are now being confirmed by leaf stomata studies. Plants regulate the number of their stomata in response to available CO2 levels. These appear to be accurate enough to record even seasonal changes. “Real” scientists (as opposed to climastrologists) are counting stomata on leaves preserved in sediment layers (which can be reasonably accurately dated).


          Report this

          00

        • #

          Howie,

          you say:

          That’s pretty low for CO2. Supposedly plants don’t do too well at that low a concentration. Wonder what fed all the ice age herbivores such as wooly mammoths, bison etc.

          Now I see why they all died off.

          Hey, maybe that’s what killed off all those dinosaurs. Nothing to eat because the CO2 levels were too low.

          Naah! I still prefer the “we were hit by an asteroid” yarn. That’s way more believable.

          (Tut tut now Tony, you were warned about that sarc button)

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Howie

            TonyfromOZ

            you said

            Naah! I still prefer the “we were hit by an asteroid” yarn. That’s way more believable.

            That reminds me of the Mt. Toba eruption about 70,000 years ago. It was a supervolcano that was probably the most powerful volcanic eruption in human history. It is thought that the human population was reduced to 10,000 individuals or less. A human bottleneck if you will.

            If an asteroid were big enough I see no reason why it couldn’t have the same effect. Of course the dinosaurs were long gone when that happened.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            John Brookes

            Apparently, if you look far enough back, large asteroid impacts with earth were much more common than now. Basically most of the large ones which were going to hit us or other planets have done so already, and there are very few left.

            You don’t need too big an asteroid to boil off the oceans completely, and apparently this did happen.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            John Brookes

            large asteroid impacts with earth were much more common than now

            Look at the near asteroids misses recorded since 1980?

            “Apparently if you look far enough back!”
            Ok – what do you know about asteroid misses in the past compared to evolution??

            John – are you saying:

            if you look far enough back

            Do you mean the following:
            1. Hadean Peroid
            2. Archean Period
            3. Proterozoic Period

            Which of these periods have there been more “ASTEROIDS” than now John?

            Also the last point – when you did say:

            You don’t need too big an asteroid to boil off the oceans completely, and apparently this did happen

            Can you use the time period of Billions of years ago (which one) to confirm this period please, “boil off of OCEANS COMPLETELY”?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            John Brookes

            Go on Dave, get on the internet and do your own research. I read a book about the evolution of the universe. I think it was “Atom” by Lawrence Krauss (?). It had this interesting stuff in it. So I’m just saying it because somebody brought up asteroid collisions.

            No need to go all “skeptical” on me ;-)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            Go on John Brookes!

            Go on Dave, get on the internet and do your own research

            I just asked a couple of questions and Lawrence Krauss is not the answer!

            It’s the big boil of oceans asteroid hit I need an answer to!


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Gee Aye

          Howie,

          this is worth a topic of its own. Aspects of climate in the glacial periods demonstrate that there is a disconnect with current models and what is actually observed, but are seldom commented upon by publishing climate scientists.

          Regarding biota, the lower CO2 levels did cause changes in plant communities and are the subject of many studies coupled with things like megafauna abundance and diversification. Regarding megafauna in the period where they became extinct there seems to be a paradox as large size has advantages in colder temperatures and the temps/CO2/available water combination favours grasses over trees (just to dumb things down)in many habitats. ie ideal food for large herbivores is relatively abundant. Thus there are clear factors that would advantage increased size in mammals in many habitats at the time.

          Then it gets complicated…


          Report this

          00

  • #
    val majkus

    o/t but copy of a comment I just made on another blog

    Piers Ackerman on the Heiner Affair http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/

    Having won his historic victory, Newman knows he must work to restore trust in government, and he promised to do so at his first party-room meeting last Monday.

    “I hope that the new state parliament will set standards that are better than we’ve seen in the past,” he said, noting however that some people may let down the team.

    “I guess the point is we are servants of the people. That’s what we’re here to do, to deliver for the people of Queensland.”

    He could do no better than begin by resolving the historic injustice that dogs Queensland politics – the Heiner affair. and

    This is a most serious and important matter.

    It now enmeshes Queenslanders at every level of the legal and political system.

    It cannot be dealt with by a royal commission. It can be dealt with only by a body that has the power to oversee those who hold the highest offices in the land. And it is clear that the only entity throughout the history of common law to hear such a matter is a commission of inquiry of the parliament.

    To restore trust in government, Premier Newman must restore parliamentary responsibility.

    For anyone unfamiliar with the Heiner affair Warwick Hughes had a recent post on his blog http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1336&cpage=1#comment-32631
    with links to other relevant material in the comments

    Piers says

    …. the Labor Party, in Queensland and federally, has put itself above the law.

    It has done everything within its power to ensure that the law will not be applied to those who have been in authority. One law for the governed, another for the government.

    How well put ‘One law for the governed, another for the government’

    I urge all Queenslanders and others to write to Premier Newman insisting on an inquiry into this sad saga of Australian history – my preference would be a Royal Commission but no doubt Piers has reasons for his opinion that a Parliamentary Inquiry is the way to start


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Searching around I found the following info’ which shows that CO2 has close to zero influence on global temperatures.

    O K being absolute zero.

    Oxygen is ice below 54.36K

    Nitrogen is ice below 63.15K

    CO2 is ice below 194.65K

    Which of these three gases is the least powerful absorber of heat?

    Answer: CO2 by a long way. Nitrogen and Oxygen are both four times more powerful at absorbing heat than CO2.

    Oxygen and Nitrogen together make up 99% of the atmosphere. CO2 makes up only .385%.

    How much will CO2 influence atmospheric temperature compared to Oxygen and Nitrogen combined?

    Answer: Compared with N and O the influence of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures at these levels is totally insignificant. In other words CO2 has no bearing on atmospheric temperature worth talking about.

    The total human contribution of CO2 is around 4 ppmv of 385 + ppmv


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Kevin,

      you mentioned here:

      CO2 is ice below 194.65K

      Now perhaps you can see why Carbon Capture and Storage will be so difficult.

      Note how this is the temperature that CO2 freezes to a solid. (Minus 78C)
      It becomes gaseous at 216.6K, or Minus 57C, so between those 2 temperatures it is in a liquid state.

      The exhaust from coal fired power plants has to be captured, the CO2 then separated from that exhaust, (via a process similar to reverse osmosis, as in water desalination) then liquified under pressure (5.2 bar) to drastically reduce its volume (but not the weight) and then transported, (via pipeline to the burial site, keeping in mind it has to be kept in the cold state along the way) and all of this has to be done at the same rate it is being emitted, which in the case of large scale plant can be as high as one ton every 1.7 seconds, and all the while kept at that low temperature.

      Then provided you have a big enough ‘hole in the dirt’ that liquid CO2 is injected into the ground.

      As that happens, the temperature increase with depth converts that CO2 back to a gaseous state, drastically increasing its volume.

      Sounds a little more complex than just … “hey, take it out of the plant and bury it, what could be simpler than that?”

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        Tony,

        Then provided you have a big enough ‘hole in the dirt’ that liquid CO2 is injected into the ground.

        As that happens, the temperature increase with depth converts that CO2 back to a gaseous state, drastically increasing its volume.

        And if that gas exerted a certain pressure which is then suddenly released, would the result be dry ice?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      MaxL

      Slight correction Kevin,
      CO2 makes up only 0.0385%.
      For a healthy environment we need much more CO2.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Howie

      You fail to mention that the most powerful absorber of heat in the atmosphere is water vapor. And water vapor is 25-200 times more plentiful than CO2 in the atmosphere.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        I’m sorry folks, but I’ve been biting my tongue ever since Kevin’s post at #25, but since this “heating of atmospheric gases” fallacy underpins the entire CO2-induced global warming bullsh*t, and yet seems to be accepted here without question, enough is enough.

        At atmospheric pressure you CANNOT heat a solid past its melting point, you CANNOT heat a liquid past its boiling point, and, unrestrained in the atmosphere, you CANNOT heat a gas at all. In an unconstrained (unpressurised) system, adding energy to a gas will simply make it more energetic, expressed as motion, NOT heat. That is, its volume will expand. Which is exactly what happens in the atmosphere.

        With gas constrained in a vessel, the addition of energy will cause an increase in temperature, but not because the gas molecules have in some way “absorbed” energy as sensible heat. Rather, the molecules move faster because they cannot expand their volume, so the rate of collisions between molecules themselves and the molecules and the container increase. It is these collisions that cause the rise in temperature, and the accumulation of usable energy (sensible heat), NOT some inherent “absorbed heat” capacity of the individual gas molecules themselves.

        Sensible heat energy is measured in calories or joules. When molecules absorb radiated (light) energy it is measured in photons. Photons and joules or calories are NOT simply interchangeable at whim, but this is exactly what the climate modellers do to explain how GHG’s “heat” things like water, to produce more water vapour, and “heat” the atmosphere, to keep the planet warm.

        A molecule of atmospheric gas MAY absorb a photon and become more energetic, and as a result it MAY strike another molecule with resultant energy that can be expressed in joules. And yes, this does happen to a small degree and probably results in a miniscule increase in atmospheric temperature. At least in the daytime. Any such heat is lost at night.

        However, for the greater part, the absorbed photon (a unit of light) will be re-emitted as a photon (a unit of light) with no subsequent sensible heat (energy capable of “heating” something else) involved at all.

        So you see, Howie, water vapour (a gas) does not “absorb” any heat at all. WATER absorbs heat from the oceans in the phase change to water vapour, but then any additional source of energy will only cause the vapour to expand – ie energy of heat (or light) is translated to energy of motion and the gas will simply expand and rise.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          At last, someone who understands.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Howie

          OK, what I meant to say is that water vapor has a higher heat content or heat capacity than any other gas in the atmosphere except ammonia, which may be present in trace quantities. So if a given mass of water is transformed into water vapor the increase in heat content will be equal to the heat lost from the surroundings which is the liquid water left behind that didn’t evaporate.

          Radiated energy can also be measured in joules. A photon is merely a packet of light of a certain frequency. Energy can always be expressed in Joules, calories, or electron volts no matter what the source.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Howie

          What makes you think an absorbed photon has to be reemitted as a photon. Is there some quantum mechanical rule that governs this? If so I would like to see a reference. If a molecule absorbs an infrared photon it will be in a higher energy state vibrationally. The excess energy can be dissipated in one of two ways. A photon can be emitted of equal or somewhat less energy than the photon that was absorbed or the excess energy can be dissipated internally in which case the internal energy of the molecule will increase.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Howie

          Since photons are a form of energy they ARE interchangable with joules or calories or electron volts. All three of the latter are units of energy. The energy of a photon is E=hv where h is Planck’s constant and v is the frequency of the light. The value of Planck’s constant is 6.626 x 10-24 J-sec. Keep in mind that this value is for a single photon. For a mole of photons the value would be 6.023 x 10+23 X h= 3.99 joules-sec


          Report this

          00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Hmm, you can have the “crap argument of the week” medal for that.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MaxL

        John, I don’t normally give thumbs down, but if that’s your counter to Kevin’s argument then I think you should hold onto your medal.

        How about showing us why you think he is wrong. What evidence do you have? What conclusions do you draw from the data?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          John Brookes

          Sorry Max, but I can’t be bothered. A good argument may deserve a response, but this is so far off the mark its not funny. Its like someone shows you a car with square wheels and wants to know whats wrong with it.

          Kevin needs to learn some stuff before he argues.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            MaxL

            Aww, Ok John, I guess if you can’t even counter an argument that you say is “so far off the mark it’s not funny” then you get to keep your medal for another week.

            BTW, I think all of us need to learn some stuff.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        John,

        Your right to exhale may not always be a human right. Your CO2 emission is now a tradable commodity listed on the stock market as carbon credits, so it may be that one day only those with deep pockets will be able to purchase them.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    KeithH

    Apologies for going O/T again Jo and I can only plead my deep concern for what is happening to Australia and the effect it will have on current and future generations.

    Further to my recent post (comment 28 on “there goes the Gravy Trains in Queensland and Victoria” thread) listing the remarkable spread across all sections of the economy which Gillard’s top “dirty polluters” cover, I looked at the 2009-2010 NGER list and found only 308 Companies had filed their emission details. This begs the question as to how Treasury did their supposedly accurate modelling on costs etc., and on exactly what figures and information did they base their projections? With the carbon credits ponzi scheme already being revealed as one of the most lucrative scams ever for financiers and carpetbaggers on the AGW band-wagon, this whole schemozzle is shaping to be the most monumental financial stuff-up in Australian and perhaps World history! (Google Carbon Credit Fraud and take your pick)!!

    Does any Government MP or bureaucrat in their massive Dept. of Climate Change really know what’s going on?

    Carbon tax to hit just 400 polluters.
    Julian Drape August 10, 2011 (edited excerpts)

    First it was thought the carbon tax would apply to 1000 of Australia’s biggest polluters, then it was 500, and now the climate change department says it’s “more like 400″. Prime Minister Julia Gillard originally said the price would be paid by the top 1000 polluters in the country, but when the $23-a-tonne carbon price was announced in July, that figure was cut in half. “Around 500 of the biggest polluters in Australia will be required to pay for their pollution under the carbon pricing mechanism,” the government’s policy documents released on July 10 state. Now the figure has been revised downwards again.

    “Under the previous (Kevin Rudd CPRS) package the number that we thought was going to be in the system was more in the order of 700,” climate change department secretary Blair Comley said on Wednesday. “(Now) the number of emitters that we think will be covered is more in the order of more like 400.” Mr Comley was giving evidence in Canberra to a parliamentary inquiry into the proposed carbon tax. But the 400 figure is somewhat rubbery.

    Mr Comley later sent a clarification to the committee, insisting the government’s latest figure of “around 500″ companies was still accurate. “I suggested that there could be under 500 and suggested the number could be between 400 and 450,” he said. “This was a misstatement based on some earlier briefing I had received. “I apologise for any confusion caused.”

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/carbon-tax-to-hit-just-400-polluters-20110810-1im3s.html

    The EU scheme has suffered a series of scandals since its launch in 2005, including permit theft, the recycling of carbon credits, and hacking of carbon accounts.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077189/Six-men-jailed-following-300million-tax-evasion-carbon-permits.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Keith,

      Your confusion stems from your failure to apply the MIUAWGA** expanding regression least-squares formula as favored by government departments when preparing estimates.

      I assure you if you apply the MIUAWGA** formula it all works out completely in accordance with Treasury modelling.

      I’m surprised a man of your undoubted intellect could have made such a mistake.

      .
      MIUAWGA = Making It Up As We Go Along.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        KeithH

        Thanks mv. I thought it might have been the multiplication theory formula RABLOEATGWBA** but I’d completely forgotten the MIUAWGA! Sheesh! I feel like such a twit. I can only blame one of “them thar” all too increasingy frequent senior moments. Perhaps I should enrol in some UTA courses for re-education unless the sustainable population CAGW eco-nutters find a new way to reduce that dangerous carbon dioxide pollution by eliminating all over-75′s!

        **RABLOEATGWBA = Repeat A Big Lie Often Enough And The Gullible Will Believe Anything.

        Cheers


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Len

        Hi MW. What does the term “wet” mean in relation to adherents of the AGW scam? In particular members of the Liberal Party who support the doctrine.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          In simple terms a Liberal “wet” is a Liberal parliamentary member who would far rather be in the Labor Party, supporting Labor Policies, rather than where they are. It doesn’t just apply to the CAGW fraud. Think of them as wannabe social reformists (do-gooders) too well-off to be taken seriously in the “Workers Party”.

          Malcolm Turnbull is currently leader of, and a perfect example of, Liberal Party Wets. Apart from the NBN he is Labor policy through and through. He even attempted to secure Labor Party endorsement for a safe Labor seat, but got turned down, before he joined the Liberal Party.

          About 70% of current sitting Liberal members are wets, which is why the Liberal party still has a “climate change policy” and why I caution people about getting too excited about Tony Abbott’s “promises”. They are his personal promises only and are in no way binding on the Liberal Party or its other sitting members.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          John Brookes

          Actually, MV, a wet is a Liberal who does not support free markets. They are usually characterised by support for protectionism. Their opponents, the dries usually favour free markets. The National party are typically very wet. Hawke and Keating were pretty dry.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            JB

            Feel free to go with the Liberal party’s own definition which of course protects the Turnbulls and the Hunts from criticism and comparison to the similarities with the Labor party.

            Personally I’ll go with the observed data of what they actually say and do.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Dennis

      The price is $23/tonne + GST 10% = $25.30/tonne in simple terms.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bob Massey

    Hi Guys, this is O/T but have you caught the Spencer Stossl interview very enlightening.

    http://tarpon.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/dr-roy-spencer-on-foxs-john-stossel-show/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    posted this on the Flannery thread:

    29 March: Detroit Free Press: Brian Dickerson: Global warming biggest threat to U.S. security, retired officer says
    But the 70-year-old Gunn is deeply concerned about all these things — which is why he is touring the country with another retired admiral from Britain’s Royal Navy, telling governors, state legislators and editorial boards that they’d better get busy about developing new sources of energy or resign themselves to the end of America’s economic and military supremacy…
    http://www.freep.com/article/20120329/COL04/203290455/Brian-Dickerson-Global-warming-biggest-threat-to-U-S-security-retired-officer-says

    someone on Bishop Hill wanted to know who the Royal Navy guy was, so i started searching but got nowhere til i suddenly realised it was probably the UK’s Climate Change Envoy,Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, who was sent here in 2010, and indeed it is him:

    Michigan Legislature:
    27 March 2012: Agenda Presentation by Vice Admiral Lee Gunn (Ret.) and Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti regarding U.S. Energy Policy and National Security .
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(sz4ueeq3opt243554ieqy0m1))/mileg.aspx?page=committeemeeting&objectname=2012-SCS-41bb2913-297e-4009-b94c-762012152c0b&chamber=Senate

    i also said about the Detroit paper story that the military are being used in an attempt to give CAGW more credibility. seems Giles made sure to bring that up here:

    25 Nov 2010: Climate Spectator: Q&A: Neil Morisetti
    Interview with Giles Parkinson
    GP: Do you get the impression that lawmakers would be more willing or pay closer attention to what a military person tells them rather than, say, a scientist, or an environmentalist, or a lay person?
    NM: Well, I think each of us has something to offer. I think, perhaps, people are listening to the military perspective because of the novelty of looking at climate change as a security issue. But at the end of the day, we are one of a number of professionals offering professional opinions.
    GP: And are there similar roles to yours with other governments?
    NM: Each country does it in its own way. I think I’m probably unique in the sense, as far as I’m aware… I mean, maybe I’m the only one who is working with three government departments, Ministry of Defence, the Commonwealth Office and the Department of Energy and Climate Change, as a serving military officer, but there are many people involved in many countries. My colleagues in America and the American military look at these issues…
    GP: And what is the purpose of your trip to Australia? What are you telling the officials that you are meeting?
    NM: I’m here to listen and learn. I want to get a better understanding of what Australia’s perspective is on these issues, both globally and within the region. I’ll explain where the UK is, and why we’ve come to the conclusions we have, and hopefully, you know, we can find common ground. And if there are areas where we’re not necessarily of a similar mind, maybe we’ll discuss those and debate those.
    GP: And what does the UK see as the specific threats in our immediate region here in south-east Asia and the Pacific?
    NM: I think if you look at the signs, and other predictions of the impact of climate change, it’s clear that rising sea levels is an issue and, in this region, there are a number of low lying islands which may find themselves becoming affected by it, as well as the Mekong Delta and the rice crops in that area. You’ve got a problem of rising sea levels, but you’ve also got reduced yields due to increased temperature…
    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/neil-morisetti-UK-climate-change-energy-security-food-natural-disaster-migration


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    also from the Giles Parkinson interview:

    “GP: What about energy security? That seems to be as equal a factor as others implicated by climate change?
    NM: I think the two are inextricably linked. Certainly in the UK military we’re looking at this. We’ve been too dependent on fossil fuels and our consumption of energy is a vulnerability because of the logistical support to enable us to continue that consumption…”

    “NM: At the end of the day each country must make a judgement on what it wants as its energy policy. It’s not for others to tell them what to do and then much it will depend on the resources available, the technology that’s available.”

    nice words, Admiral, but the HYPOCRITICAL UK and many EU countries are EXEMPT from these insane oil sanctons being unilaterlly imposed by US and EU, the mere threat of which has been pushing up oil prices. one shudders to think where our threats against Iran will take the oil price if we attack the country!

    1 April: Business Recorder: AP: Iranian oil import: China rejects Obama”s sanctions
    China rejected President Barack Obama’s decision to move forward with plans for sanctions on countries buying oil from Iran, saying Saturday that Washington had no right to unilaterally punish other nations…
    Obama’s move clears the way for the US to penalise foreign financial institutions that do oil business with Iran by barring them from having a US-based affiliate or doing business here.
    Obama’s goal is to tighten the pressure on Iran, not allies, and already the administration has exempted 10 European Union countries and Japan from the threat of sanctions because they cut their oil purchases from Iran.
    Other nations have about three months to significantly reduce such imports before sanctions would kick in.
    The main importers of Iranian oil that have not received exemptions from the US are China, India, Turkey, South Africa and South Korea.
    The administration would be loath to hit a close friend like South Korea or India, or a Nato ally like Turkey, with sanctions, and is working with those countries to reduce their imports…
    The United States imports no oil from Iran.
    Energy-starved India, which relies on Iranian oil for 12 percent for its power needs, has said that it does not heed unilateral sanctions such as those imposed by the US and EU…
    In February, India irked the West by arranging to make 45 percent of its yearly $11 billion oil payments to Iran in Indian rupees, with the rest paid in a barter system as Tehran seeks Indian-made machinery, iron and steel, minerals and automobiles.
    http://www.brecorder.com/fuel-a-energy/193/1171031/

    22 March: BBC: US exempts Japan and EU nations from Iran oil sanctions
    Ordered by Congress in December, the sanctions aim to punish countries that continue to buy oil from Iran.
    China, India and South Korea, major buyers of Iranian oil, were not exempt…
    The European countries that have been exempt are France, Germany, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the UK…
    The European Union has also increased its sanctions on Iran, banning new oil contracts and phasing out existing ones from 1 July…
    The law says the United States must cut off the US bank account of any foreign financial institution that completes petroleum-related transactions with Iran’s central bank, unless its country is exempt…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17454814

    what an absolute disgrace.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    imposing sanctions on Iran exporting its oil is a declaration of war, so how schizophrenic is the West?

    31 March: Haaretz, Israel: Australia joins list of countries warning against Israeli strike on Iran
    More and more Western countries are joining a growing list of countries who are applying heavy international pressure on Israel to prevent it from attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities…
    Just a few days ago, Germany’s Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere said in an interview with the newspaper Bild that he had warned Ehud Barak against an attack on Iran during their meeting in Berlin last week.
    “Some Israeli cabinet members do not estimate enough the negative consequences of such attacks,” said de Maiziere. “I told Ehud Barak that it was hard to calculate the consequences, and one mustn’t take uncalculated risks,” he added…
    Barak, who visited Tokyo a few weeks ago, heard a similar message from Japan’s prime minister, who warned that an Israeli attack would result in “serious consequences for the entire Middle East.” A few days later, British Prime Minister David Cameron stated that he did not “think the Israelis should take that action now. We told them they shouldn’t and said we wouldn’t support it if they did. We’ve been very clear,” Cameron said.
    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/australia-joins-list-of-countries-warning-against-israeli-strike-on-iran-1.421769


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Streetcred

    o/t but a very interesting blog on anthropogenic CO2 (h/t Pharos at Bishop Hill)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    pic of PM with Campbell Newman, and Samantha writes as if this is a pleasant little bipartisan business. the lies about $4 on the electricity bills being the only cost to consumers is the GREATEST LIE the PM tells, and Samantha KNOWS THAT. nic.

    30 March: Adelaide Advertiser: Samantha Maiden: Gillard’s carbon costs compo
    JULIA Gillard predicts families facing increased electricity costs of $4 a week under the carbon tax will secure double that amount in compensation…
    Ms Gillard backed a push by Tony Abbott and Liberal premiers, including Queensland’s Campbell Newman, to disclose the impact of the new carbon tax on power bills…
    NSW Energy Minister Chris Hartcher said he welcomed Ms Gillard’s decision to finally back greater transparency…
    “We’ve always been absolutely up front that putting a price on carbon would increase electricity bills,” Ms Gillard said.
    “What we’ve said is people should anticiplate seeing their electricity prices rise by around 10 per cent.
    “Now for an average householder, their electricity bill will go up by about $4 a week. On average, what they will see coming in is more than $10 a week as a result of tax cuts, family payment increases and pension increases.
    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/gillards-carbon-costs-compo/story-e6frea6u-1226315374654


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    another totally grovelling, pro-carbon tax, isn’t-the-PM great-for-accepting-transparency-on-power-bills saga by Samantha, but noticed the big pic at the top:

    1 April: Daily Telegraph: Samantha Maiden: Why truth on carbon tax is more power for Labor
    Caption: Police escort anti-carbon tax protesters after they interrupted parliament’s question time. Picture: Kym Smith Source: The Australian
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/why-truth-on-carbon-tax-is-more-power-for-labor/story-e6frezz0-1226315232492


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    O/T or maybe not.
    People might be interested in this post at RealClimate.

    So all we need to do to make climate change work is change the sign.
    So our climate models are 99% right we just have the wrong sign.
    This would be a great joke if the worlds economy was not hanging on the results of climate science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom

    Australia is providing a salutory lesson to the rest of the democratic world about the political poison of climate alarmism. Prime Minister Julia Gillard is a dead woman walking. That means she will be replaced before the next Australian federal election late next year, but the Labor Party government still doesn’t get it: it can’t win an election whenever it is held. It is being destroyed by tying itself to the Greens and their doomsday scaremongering.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Good post Jo, we must never lose sight of the obvious as we battle the ecotards.

    Speaking of ice ages

    http://iceagenow.info/2012/03/whistler-blackcomb-snowiest-march-record/

    http://iceagenow.info/2012/03/persistent-snowfall-china-kills-90000-livestock/

    http://iceagenow.info/2012/03/bering-sea-largest-ice-extent-1979-2/

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    (funny i thought the melt season should have started by now)

    Speaking of ecotards have a look at the mug on this one as she tells us we are no better than the cotton plantation owners way down south in Alabama all those years ago. Could anyone take her seriously?

    http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treated-says-professor/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    So ocean acidification due to solution of CO2 does occur?

    One fact agreed to by the astroturfer and her dupes.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Nuts, somebody left the asylum gate open again.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Mark Hladik

      More accurate to say that ocean pH has changed (and will change) on a continuum due to a variety of factors, and most species living today evolved when atmospheric CO2 concentration was anywhere from 1000 ppm to 7000 ppm.

      Oceanic pH, like the whole of the climate system, is a dynamic system, never in ‘equilibrium’.

      Regards,

      Mark H.


      Report this

      00