THE Australian Government has committed itself to an emissions trading scheme (known as ‘cap and trade’ in the US) in its fight against climate change.
The legislation passed the lower house last week but is expecting to be defeated in the Senate on June 15th. The government, however, is likely to take the legislation back to the Senate in late September or October and has threatened a double dissolution if it doesn’t get its way. This could mean an election with a focus on the issue of climate change.
A few independents hold the balance of power in the Senate and the government has said it is keen to negotiate with them. Just last week one independent Senator, Steve Fielding, indicated that there had so far been no debate on the science of climate change in Australia.
In today’s ‘The Australian’ newspaper he has repeated this concern that there has been no debate on this important issue and says he is keen to talk with the Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, about the science.
Senator Fielding writes:
“IT seems every Australian has an opinion on the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme. Green groups have been calling for stronger emissions targets while businesses have been pushing for more assistance to be granted to affected industries. Others simply argue that Australia should be waiting until Copenhagen before rushing ahead with any scheme. The one question, however, that no one seems to be asking, is whether or not we even need an emissions trading scheme at all?
Only 500 years ago, people believed Earth was the centre of the universe and the sun and planets revolved around it. Anyone who dared challenge this idea was denounced as a heretic and punished by imprisonment, torture or in some cases even death. Public debate on this issue was strictly prohibited. It is only on account of people such as Copernicus and Galileo, who dared question the “indisputable science”, that we now know these assertions to be false. For me, these events are in many ways reminiscent of the present debate on climate change. Though thankfully we do not persecute those arguing against the idea of human-induced global warming, a blind acceptance of only one perspective has meant that proper debate on this issue has essentially been stifled. Opponents of the popular opinion that global warming is a direct result of carbon emissions, a group that includes many notable and distinguished scientists, are often derided and quickly dismissed.
It is for this reason that I headed to Washington this week on a self-funded trip to look at the science and facts behind global warming. I am neither a climate sceptic nor a climate extremist. What I am, however, is open-minded.
As an engineer, I have been trained to listen to both sides of the debate in order to make an informed decision about any issue. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that in order to form a conclusive view about any topic, you need to properly explore all available possibilities.
Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive. At the conference I attended on Tuesday hosted by the Heartland Institute, I heard views that challenged the Rudd government’s set of “facts”. Views that could not be dismissed as mere conspiracy theories, but that were derived using proper scientific analysis. The idea that climate change is a result of the variation in solar activity and not related to the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere is not something I can remember ever being discussed in the media. The question of whether global warming is a new phenomenon or something that is just part of the naturally occurring 1500-year climate cycle was never raised in any of the discussions I have had with the Rudd government. Has the government considered these questions, or has it just accepted the one scientific explanation for climate change at face value?
These are the sorts of questions that I believe need to be answered before any emissions trading scheme can be properly considered.
I plan to put some of these questions to Penny Wong and her advisers when we next sit down to discuss the carbon pollution reduction scheme bill, just as I did when I spoke to climate change experts in President Barack Obama’s administration this week. I want to know why she is confident carbon emissions are driving global temperatures when during the past decade carbon emissions have been increasing rapidly but according to some scientists global temperatures have not been rising. Can the Minister explain why through the past 100 years, global temperatures have not changed in proportion to the changes in carbon emissions? Has the Minister seen modelling which shows that solar radiation is highly correlated to global temperature changes, and if so, why can this not be a plausible alternative explanation for global warming?
Perhaps CO2 is not the bogeyman of the climate world as many would have us believe.
It seems even the parliamentary library, an independent resource for politicians, has become caught up in the carbon craze. Only recently, the library produced a 13,000-word manifesto on the case for carbon-related climate change. Strangely enough, however, no accompanying research paper was provided exploring any alternative views. Why are these opposing arguments treated with such disdain and, in fact, largely ignored?
I raise these questions not because I am wholly convinced of the merits of these arguments. Rather, because I believe that only by having a healthy debate on the issues and not shirking from these confronting facts can we expect to arrive at the proper conclusion, whatever that may be.
I have been criticised by some for raising these questions. However, I firmly believe that a fear of doing something unpopular should never get in the way of the responsibility to do what is right.
Several weeks ago the then parliamentary secretary for climate change, Greg Combet, correctly declared that the carbon pollution reduction scheme was one of the most significant environmental and economic reforms in the history of the nation. He could not be more correct. It is a scheme that will unquestionably lead to thousands of Australians losing their jobs, more than 23,000 in the mining industry alone. It is a scheme that will send the cost of basic goods and services upwards at a time when we can least afford it and will leave state governments $5.5 billion worse off by 2020. As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct. Unlike the Greens, who with alarmist rhetoric and extreme ideology have painted themselves into a corner, I am willing to engage in this debate so that the best outcome for all Australians can be achieved.”
****************
Notes and Links
The above comment from Mr Fielding is republished from The Australian: I kept an open mind on the road to Washington, Steve Fielding | June 08, 2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25601203-7583,00.html
Steve Fielding represents ‘Family First’ in the Senate. The above photograph shows Mr Fielding speaking in the Australian Senate and is from his website at http://www.stevefielding.com.au/
Fielding duped over solar flare theory, Bonny Symons-Brown, June 8, 2009 – 6:29PM , http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/fielding-duped-over-solar-flare-theory-20090608-c0ef.html and http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25605159-12377,00.html
Read about the conference Senator Fielding attended in Washington during this week at Quadrant Online. Part 1 here: Part 1: The Waxmen-Turkey Bill, by Bob Carter, June 8, 2009, http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/06/part-1-the-waxmen-turkey-bill
Oppose the ETS: Send your Senators a message from here http://www.listentous.org.au/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
It is remarkable that with so few scientists sitting in Australia’s parliament, Dennis Jensen with science degrees (including a PhD) and Steve Fielding with an engineering degree (and MBA), both question the fundamental basis of the current climate dogma. Are they really both wrong? If journalists had a closer look they would find that the climate is in fact complex, chaotic, and very poorly understood.
I’ve been emailing Qld Labor senators, hoping I would find a receptive type but no luck.
Just pages of AGW propaganda and delusion in reply like:
“If we don’t act it will only get worse with changing temperatures and rainfall patterns [heaven forbid], more droughts, floods, water shortages, rising sea levels and extreme weather……” page after page.
Alarmist crap! They should listen to themselves!
It was most pleasing to hear Fielding’s quiet voice of reason.
Hopefully the respective senates in both Aust and the US will block these bills at least till after Copenhagen.
A very reasoned and factual article from Fielding, we can only hope he recieves enough support and encouragement to vote against this stupid, pig ignorant nonsense.
Even if you believed this rubbish your vote should be postponed until after the Copenhagen conference.
The deniers’ friend – from the godly side of Aus politics. Wow !
What an embarrassment …. we need a double dissy to flush these guys.
And how is that Murray drought going? hmmmmm inflows not massively below all previous records.
Spanglers – the senators probably think you’re a drongo …. hahahahahahaha
I enjoyed Pearman’s take http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/08/2592235.htm
There has been an ongoing debate for over a century about the role CO2 plays in the climate. Fielding is just ignorant of it.
“The idea that climate change is a result of the variation in solar activity and not related to the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere is not something I can remember ever being discussed in the media.”
It’s been discussed by the scientists.
Senator Fielding’s opinion about human caused climate change from the emission of CO2 is well put. On evidence alone, has icreased atmospheric CO2 caused a correlative increase in global mean temperature? NO!
So what is the game really about.
Any action that is taken to reduce human produced carbon dioxide to reduce global warming or influence climate is a mistake that puts freedom and prosperity at risk.
The Solar Grand Maximum that went on for about 70 years appears to have ended. The 30 year or so Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) uptrend that combined with the Solar Grand Maximum to produce the late-20th-century temperature run up has started its 30 year downtrend. The PDO downtrend combined with the quiet sun is resulting in continued planet cooling. (The cooling will be slow because of the huge thermal capacitance of the oceans) The sun has not been this quiet this long since 1913. Sunspot changes appear to be a catalyst for cloud changes and therefore have much greater influence than total solar irradiance (TSI).
Since 2000, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased 18.4% of the increase from 1800 to 2000. According to the average of the five reporting agencies, the trend of average global temperatures since 1998 shows no increase and from 2002 through 2008 the trend shows a DECREASE of 1.8°C/century. This separation (there have been many others) corroborates the lack of connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide increase and average global temperature.
Many Climate Scientists are completely unaware of some relevant science and understand other relevant science poorly (it’s not in their curriculum). The missing science proves that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. See the pdfs linked from http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true for the proof, to identify the missing science and to see the cause of the temperature run-up in the late 20th century. It is significant that Climate Scientists use the word ‘feedback’ but apply it completely differently than had been successfully applied for decades by engineers.
As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to increase and the average global temperature doesn’t it is becoming more and more apparent that many climate scientists have made an egregious mistake and a whole lot of people have been misled.
Here in the good ole US, we are proposing to cut our GHG emissions by 50% by 2050. We also admit we are responsible for 25% of the total ACO2, so if you are atue believer like Luke and SJT, we are responsible for +.2C in the past century. And since we cutting our emissions by 50% we will only be responsible for +.1C in the next century.
Of course if you believe that you also believe that 100% of that +.8C was solely due to ACO2. That the ~ 85PPM increase in CO2 is solely due to man. That there is NO OTHER NATURAL influence. That no other country will continue growing at its current or a greater rate. And, more importantly that mankind is the parasite that is killing this planet. The latter is the foundation of the argument.
So Ozland what’s your contribution to that .8C? How much of your economy are you willing to risk to alleviate/eliminate it?
I’ll just wait over on this side of the world for the answer.
Note: the numbers in the math is from memory so they may be off. Regardless, the bottom line is still a very small number at great cost.
“Regardless, the bottom line is still a very small number at great cost.”
Evidence CoREV, evidence………….
Fielding’s interview on Lateline came across as special pleading around an excuse that he is on a mission to discover the truth…….. So where has he been all this time?
Why did he have to travel to the US to hear the Heartland people, why couldn’t he have gone to the IPA or the Lavosier Group. Strange that, aren’t home grown denialists good enough for him (thats a downright insult to the folks at the IPA after all the hard work they have done). Why hasn’t he talked with Australian scientists such as David Karoly et al or amongst the denialists, commentators such as Andrew Bolt who, as Nexus 6 points out, is one of those people who have had their views cruelly and purposely stifled at every turn.
As to:
“Views that could not be dismissed as mere conspiracy theories, but that were derived using proper scientific analysis.” I would lurve to hear the proper scientific analysis he refers to.
and
“It seems even the parliamentary library, an independent resource for politicians, has become caught up in the carbon craze. Only recently, the library produced a 13,000-word manifesto on the case for carbon-related climate change. Strangely enough, however, no accompanying research paper was provided exploring any alternative views. Why are these opposing arguments treated with such disdain and, in fact, largely ignored?”
The guy has decided and to that end the trip is just a fig leaf (watch how he repeats that trip was self funded). What a coward!
JeremyC, evidence of what? I presented a simple math description from empirical evidence of the potential maximum impacts of the ETS/C&T bills. You question that Global Avg temp did not increase by .8C in the past century or that the US supplies 25% of the world’s ACO2 annually?
Do you have ways to get to large numbers? Evidence of that ole tipping point?
I’ll post again what u wrote CoREV
“Regardless, the bottom line is still a very small number at great cost.”
Evidence for ‘small’ and ‘evidence’ for ‘at great cost’
Simple
Fielding is correct to ask if solar variation is a significant factor in climate change. It can explain the Medieval Warm Period, the subsequent Little Ice Age and at least some of the recent rewarming since 1850. Half of the 20th century warming occurred prior to 1940, and our emissions had not risen much to that point.
Solar variation seems less convincing as an explanation of the later 1976-1998 warming. But the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), mentioned above by commenter Pangburn, is another natural cycle which could cause or contribute to such climate change. One phase of the PDO encourages El Nino (warming) and the other encourages La Nina (cooling). This 60-year cycle may explain or contribute to the later warming (1976-1998) and its recent cessation.
JeremyC, if you really do not understand the numbers behind the math do some research. Otherwise stop the games. I just have.
“States to lose $5.5bn and the mining industry to lose 23000 jobs”–
and all for what—
A measly contribition by us of only 0.0043c over 100years-worst case.
Good to see that we have rational people running our Governments and that the so called scientific elites do tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I suspect the reason he hasn’t approached the leading Australian scientists, as people are suggesting he should have, is because they all head up “CLIMATE CHANGE” departments – they clearly show their bias in their titles.
The UK Independence Party , openly climate change skeptical, has beaten the Labour party in the EU elections.
I hope our polis are taking note.
Your avoiding answering the question CoREV and just blustering.
Jeremy,
What CoRev is saying is common knowledge, even the govt agrees. That’s why we are being told we must “set an example” to the rest of the world. I would have thought that Spain had already done that, but apparently we should do it as well to prove it wasn’t just a fluke.
It is clear that the first world can do sfa about the increase in future co2 emissions and the developing nations will be the big emitters from now on.
At the present growth China and India will emit half of all emissions from about 2040 so that is the problem in a nutshell. ( presently they emit around 30%)
If we could put those trillions ( to be flushed down the toilet for ZERO return) into R&D like new battery technology, safer nuclear power stations, whatever ,we could make a real difference to co2 emissions just so the bedwetters could sleep more soundly at night.
Btw some of the new lithium ion battery packs can be charged in 10 minutes ( so it’s claimed) so perhaps in a few years with more nano additions the electric car may be a more reasonable proposition.
“That there is NO OTHER NATURAL influence. ”
The IPCC also models the natural influences, read the IPCC report.
Would have loved to have been a Drosophila pseudoobscura on the wall when Fielding and Plimer chatted over Creationism.
“Would have loved to have been a Drosophila pseudoobscura on the wall when Fielding and Plimer chatted over Creationism.”
When will we have a real debate on Creationism?
SJT aks “When will we have a real debate on Creationism?” Maybe when it is accepted that beliefs without understanding hinders science but stokes religion?. Then again maybe not.
SJT, in repeating my comment you show how completely you missed the point. Of course there are natural causes. Of course not all of the increase in CO2 is ONLY from mankind, Of course the maximum amount of temp change, (for JeremyC a small .2C) could never be achieved because of all the above, the 3rd world countries increasing and the myriad of other reasons, already known and still to be identified, will further limit the temp change.
Get it yet? Sheesh!
Give up CoRev, unless you have a CC ( natural) for DUMMIES handy you may as well talk to a strainer post.
But they’re in good CC denial company when our chief scientist doesn’t even understand the effects of increased co2 in the atmosphere. ( see Denis Jensen scientist @ member for Tangey)
“it is only on account of people such as Copernicus and Galileo, who dared question the “indisputable science”,”
Huh, what’s this tosspot on about now? The problem was RELIGION Steve, not SCIENCE. Bloody hell if he gets any support here I’m calling game over on this blog, to Luke and all, hang up the gloves boys, it just cruelty from here on in (could be fun though).
Steve Fielding a coward ? No jeremy, I don’t think so.
I think he has come to his conclusion fairly late in the piece, and I don’t blame him for that, and I think he knows the storm that will be directed at him from the green left, who have bet the house on their fantasy of climatastrophe.
CO2 is rising and the planet’s cooling, not warming. Climate models predicted exactly the opposite, and on this basis alone it would be crazy to inflict punitive, needless economic mayhem on the populace. Unless of course, you were a redistributing green lefty…
“Bringing in the sheep, bringing in the sheep, we will come rejoicing bringing in the sheep …” come Lois, Motty Coey and co, lets hear you …
Bazza and others
It is assumed Steve Fielding is a creationist because of his assocation with Family First – but is there any evidence for this?
I understand he is a Christian but is he a creationist?
Also, speaking as a sceptic and an atheist, I reckon it would perhaps be easier to believe in Creation than AGW. Both are theories in my view easily disproven …
“Both are theories in my view easily disproven ”
I haven’t seen any evidence of that here. Your lates ‘disproving’ relies on evidence that doesn’t support your claim. The ice extent briefly touched the normal bounds for a few months, and is back outside it again.
The Gerlich & Teichner evidence is not even accepted by Mike Hammer.
It strikes me that the next few years will be decisive in answering the question as to the extent of anthropogenic forcing of the climate by industrial carbon dioxide emissions. I don’t think anyone suggests that there is no effect, but the test as to the accuracy of the climate models will come over the next period. There has been a short period when any link between rising GHGs and temperature has been broken. Will temperature return to an increase which might be underlying the short-term record? Or will temperature remain flat or even decline? If the latter, then those who dismiss the climate models as having little or no predictive skill will be vindicated. If the former, we might place greater credence in the models.
Luke (at 10.03pm on 8 June) enjoyed Graeme Pearman’s take. This was:
‘Graeme Pearman, who is former chief of atmospheric research at the CSIRO, says the solar flare debate has been around for a long time.
‘ “Senator Fielding might have just learnt about it, but in fact the science community has been aware of it for many years,” he said.
‘ “The changes of output of the sun are well and truly documented. We’ve been observing this for over a hundred years.
‘ “We understand that there was probably some warming earlier last century, due to changes of emissions from the sun, but no evidence that the recent warming is due to that.
‘ “And therefore there’s no anticipation that that will be a major factor through this century.” ‘
Luke might have done well to keep reading, and consider the views of Phil Chapman:
‘One proponent of the solar flare theory is Phil Chapman, an Australian-born geophysicist and former NASA astronaut scientist.
‘ “The sun is extremely quiet. There are very few spots, much less than we expect,” he said.
‘ “The implication is that if this continues, we’re going to see worldwide cooling rather than warming.”
‘ He says the theory is that when the sun is not active, its magnetic field shrinks.
‘ “That means that more cosmic rays get through to the earth from out in the galaxy,” he said.
‘ “And the cosmic rays, when they stop in the atmosphere, tend to produce clouds, and the clouds reflect sunlight back into space.
‘ “So when you have fewer sunspots you have more clouds and therefore cooler weather.”
‘ Dr Chapman is warning against policies to reduce carbon emissions.
‘ “The fact is that everyone that’s looked at the data recognises that the climate has simply not been warming since 2002,” he said.
‘ “Whether that’s going to continue, nobody can tell, but until we do know it is really foolish to start spending money.” ’
Note Chapman’s qualifications as a geophysicist. And Pearman’s? Like several ‘climate scientists’ (Barry Brook, Stephen Schneider, eg) he trained as a biologist. Graeme is a perfectly competent carbon cycle scientist, but should I (as a non-specialist) – or Senator Fielding – give preference to his views or those of Chapman on the question of the contribution of the sun to climate variability? If I wanted to rely on the authority of the individuals concerned, I would probably take the geophysicist.
But what does the evidence say? The stock standard IPCC line (voiced by Graeme Pearman) is that the recent warming is greater than can be explained by solar variability. But is this true?
It seems to me that the evidence suggests that this is not the case – that solar variation is of the same order of magnitude as the forcing by anthropogenic GHG emissions. The consensus seems clear that there is peak-to-trough variability of 0.1% (1.3 W/m²) during the 11 year sunspot cycle, and somewhere between 0.1% and 0.2% (1.3-2.6 W/m²) over the longer term (from the Maunder Minimum to the present Modern Maximum).
This puts long-term solar variability at half to unity of the current level of anthropogenic GHG forcing – with about half again in short-term (11 year solar cycle) variability.
A key difference, of course, is that the increase in solar output coming out of the Maunder Minimum has been having an effect for longer. Indeed, the clincher for the AGW hypothesis has been that the recent warming (since 1977) cannot be accounted for by solar variation.
But should we expect that the temperature of the atmosphere should track either GHGs or solar activity on an annual basis? After all, we know that the oceans are the ‘flywheel’ in the system and that the latent heat required to melt the cryosphere will dampen any changes over the long term.
It seems to me that the AGW hypothesis was developed before we understood fully the role of the oceans in affecting global temperature, and that (in good Kuhnian fashion) its advocates are busily trying to defend it against alternative views. (The problem, of course, is that this debate has become inextricably tied up with politics and policy, so it is far from a contest between scientists concerned only with truth and reputation). I refer, of course, to the discovery of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in 1997.
The PDO appears to have a stronger association with the significant climate shifts in recent history than any other factor: a shift to a warming phase in 1905; a shift to a cooling phase in 1946; warm phase 1977; a few cool years around 1998, but no phase shift; beginning of a shift to a cool phase in 2008.
These phase shifts correspond quite well to the atmospheric warming and cooling phases, including the recent lack of warming. The advocates of the AGW hypothesis rely upon the masking effect of sulphate aerosols to account for the 1946-1977 cooling, but have to rely on ocean storage of heat to account for the present lack of cooling. What do the Argo floats tell us? Is the energy in the oceans? It seems not, and global sea ice appears to be increasing. AGW seems a less parsimonious theory than one of solar dominance with a role for oceans in storing and releasing energy. But note: this is not a dichotomous situation, but one of multi-causality – and attepting to create a false dichotomy and labelling dissenters as ‘sceptics’ and ‘deniers’ are a confession of weakness on the part of the AGW advocates.
As I say, I think the next few years will be interesting. It is surely not a case of one factor or the other, but the extent of each. But if the saturation of the forcing of carbon dioxide producing a logarithmic temperature effect is not accompanied by a positive feedback from water vapour (and there seems to be some interesting evidence on this), and end to the Modern Maximum might produce cooling. Perhaps it has started. And perhaps we have already seen most of the effect of AGW from GHGs.
The evidence over the next few years should tell us how much emphasis to give to each explanation.
I’m open to persuasion – but Senator Fielding at least deserves an answer (regardless of what his religous beliefs might be).
“I haven’t seen any evidence of that here. Your lates ‘disproving’ relies on evidence that doesn’t support your claim.”
SJT, It isn’t necessary to disprove your favourite theory, AGW.
The proponents are supposed to prove it first and so far it’s all propaganda and no evidence.
But wait! Darn! I forgot about those computer models!
“I don’t think anyone suggests that there is no effect,”
You haven’t been around here much, have you?
SJT,
Perhaps you might point me to someone who has put their name to a post in which they deny that elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide has ‘no effect’ on atmospheric temperature. Not some one who won’t put their name to their post (could be a troll 🙂 ). My impression is that most of the so-called ‘deniers’ just think that most of the forcing effect has already been apparent and the effect is not as large as the supporters of the AGW would have us believe – so they think the pproblem is overstated. But I know grey is not your favourite colour, and you feel more comfortable withg dichotomies.
What will make the AGW fanatics sit up and take notice is a lack of support at the ballot box.
In Britain labour has been forced into third spot behind an AGW skeptics party at the recent EU elections, so Fielding is on very safe ground at the next election if he holds the line against this corruption of the science of natural CC.
At least 40% of Aussies are skeptal of AGW and that figure will increase when jobs are hit and the cost of energy starts to bite.
“Also, speaking as a sceptic and an atheist, I reckon it would perhaps be easier to believe in Creation than AGW. Both are theories in my view easily disproven …”
Ahhhhh Jennifer, speaking as a christian let me tell you its very easy to disprove creationism…….. Clue no 1! Genesis 1 to 3 wasn’t written in english! Think about it, it wont take long.
I notice that CoREV never understood my question. He thought I was asking about the numbers he wrote on the screen. It was the numbers he didn’t write on the screen that I asked the question about
“SJT,
Perhaps you might point me to someone who has put their name to a post in which they deny that elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide has ‘no effect’ on atmospheric temperature”
Read this. http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-falsified-again/?cp=21
Jennifer herself has posted topics in support of Gerlich & Teischner with their paper that falsifies CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Michael Hammer does not agree with G&T, despite the claim.
SJT,
I do not have time to read the 200-odd posts, nor the paper itself, but I note the abstract begins with:
‘(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects’
I take that to be a statement about ‘greenhouse warming’ rather than ‘radiative forcing.’ I thought we were talking about the latter, and that the ‘greenhouse’ was in fact the wrong model, but you are welcome correct me on that.
Ho hum. This vacuous posturing by Senator Fielding is the foreplay to more horse-trading. When are these people going to do their research without rolling out useless press-releases,blog entries and disingenuous radio interviews? Has this clown approached you for ‘information’,Jennifer? If he hasn’t ,do you feel miffed that he bypassed your mob for Heartland?
It will be most interesting to observe the type of response from Ms Wong. One would be forgiven thinking a certain amount of panic may be gripping her as she is made to confront the
reasons for her robotic-like statements about AGW. It will no longer be good enough to mention some organisation which supports her stand.
Rather, the question which she must answer is, “What evidence does not support AGW?”. Let’s see how widely read is Ms Wong, how thoroughly she has attempted to explore her ideas which will wreak havoc on the economy, and just what is her grasp of science.
Al Gore showed his shallowness by not debating the eminent journalist Christopher Monckton in Washington several weeks ago. Here was Gore’s chance to deliver all the evidence for his claims, and for him to show why other data did not support any contrary view. His ‘last minute’ change of mind (if that is to be believed) spoke volumes about his claims and his lack of scientific knowledge.
Ms Wong will be exposed if she follows Gore’s pathetic example. And I do not want this country wrecked by Ms Wong parroting Gore, Stern, Garnaut, or any other vested interest.
JeremyC said: “I notice that CoREV never understood my question. He thought I was asking about the numbers he wrote on the screen. It was the numbers he didn’t write on the screen that I asked the question about”
And, I repeat my earlier statement I refuse to play the game.
What game? The read my mind game! The funny I gotcha game! You want evidence for some number/data hidden within your own mind, then do the research.
If you want to have a discussion then speak your mind and stop the game playing.
Sheesh!!!
“I reckon it would perhaps be easier to believe in Creation than AGW. Both are theories in my view easily disproven ” – Jen
We all wait with baited breath for Jen to demonstrate rather than assert this.
“We all wait with baited breath for Jen to demonstrate rather than assert this.”
Michael, If the Warmly Religious had not “adjusted” the data in the first place by ignoring the bleedin’ obvious UHI, getting rid of the MWP and feeding the “Predictors” with subjective assumption, the AGW theory would be a one-legged cow.
At the moment it’s probably got a couple of legs.
Just read through this short story to see how good their data has been.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Yes Spangled but the first and most important omission is the recovery after the end of the LIA from 1850 to the present.
The LIA temp drop was accepted to be at least 1C and since then we’ve had a rise of 0.7C so we effectively have 0.3C left over to easily account for this slight rise in temp.
Then we’ve had extra solar radiation, UHI, more el ninos, IOD locked into a positive or neutral phase since 1992, more than enough to account for a small rise in temp worldwide.
“Michael, If the Warmly Religious had not “adjusted” the data in the first place by ignoring the bleedin’ obvious UHI, ”
You know perfectly well that UHI adjustments are made, it is not ignored at all. If you look at the four temperature sets on woodfortrees, they are correlate quite well.
All data has to be adjusted, including the data for the much acclaimed UAH satellite data.
Neville, well, er, a couple of very wobbly legs.
“All data has to be adjusted, including the data for the much acclaimed UAH satellite data.”
SJT, come off the grass, old feller.
When the bloke promoting the theory is also responsible for the “adjustments”???…..
Have you checked the satellites this month? Virtually no warming in 30 years.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
“Have you checked the satellites this month? Virtually no warming in 30 years.”
You have no idea, apparently, of why people use regressions analysis to filter out short term noise to detect long term trends. I don’t see a little arrow on Spencers graph saying “La Nina”.
The reason you’re a drongo fair drongo is because you’re a drongo. Anyone can see the trend is up. Unless you’re some wiggle watching turd.
And as for “more el ninos, IOD locked into a positive or neutral phase since 1992” HELLO HELLO – wakey wakey – hands off snakey !!
Good grief !
And looking at that gentle trend, dear Luke, how many trillion should we tip into the bottomless pit to “normalise” it?
Knowing all the while that the pit really is bottomless and the chance of normalisation very slim?
I thought Jen would have vanquished AGW by now….plenty of assetions flying around, but not much being disproven.
Shorter drongo: if it wasn’t the data demonstrating AGW, there’d be no AGW.
Michael,
just one of many:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/fossil-fuels-fail-to-explain-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels/
Jen, the rest had better be a whole lot better than that – a quite dubious suggestion that there is an unexplained source of ‘natural’ C02.
Is this ‘disproof by irrelevent citation’?
Wakey, wakey to you Hanrahan Luke.
For as long as I have been reading this blogg you have been claiming some association between the Murray Darling Basin drought and AGW.
Seemingly oblivious to the historical facts that this drought is only mirroring a number of similar dry periods since 1788.
Well, guess what?
As predicted about a month ago the drought is now over!
You heard it here first.
Total storage in the MDB is similar to this time last year but importantly just double the same time in 2007.
More importantly, daily inflows have been rising for the last 3 months.
All catchments are now moist for the first time in years and it will only take a decent rain band to bring dams back to a usefull level.
I am well aware of recent press releases claiming doom and gloom. Just more and sadly predicitably misinformation.
Could we move back into dryer times this year?
Of course we could. It is called climate and largely unpredicitable.
Even by you and other scare mongers, Luke.
However I have seen this patern of change from drought to above average precipitation a number of times and am confident that we will see flooding in the system within the next 12 months.
Most experts and all the scaremongers will as usual be proved wrong.
Care for a wager, Luke.
Pikey.
“if it wasn’t the data demonstrating AGW, there’d be no AGW.”
Exactly!! One is as dodgy as the other.
Well I’m not talking MDB – I’m talking the Murray and always have been. I’m not scarmongering pike-so-saurus- I’m just telling you what you’ve got in the real world. Maybe it will rain this season let’s hope so – but the Pacific also has El Nino pre-cursor signs.
I suspect this might become a religious experience for Fielding.
Here he is, challenging AGW like a David with a sling, yet if he only held the same concern for his religious views he might kill two birds with one stone.
God’s not dead, only religion is dying.
I don’t know the guy but an Australian friend of mine sent me the following:
“Unfortunately Steve Fielding is a Christian Zealot nut case who is running the Family First party.
So far, everything he has voted for or against has damaged family lifestyle….
blocked the alcopops tax designed to restrict youth drinking problems, causing the government to repay millions of dollars to distillers and lowering the price of “alcopops”. Young girls love him, they can get more drunk now for the same money spent.
blocked a Medicare levy increase to benefit lower income earners, that would increase private health by about $20.00 per year, yet save low income families around $400.00 per year.
provided a “public funded tax rebate of $3000.00” for farmers and tour operators “who are doing it tough” when they purchase a car over $53,000.00, yet normal people who want to buy a car over $53,000 pay “prestige vehicle tax” whether they are doing it tough or not.
This is the same man, who in February, spoke at a senate committee hearing, claiming that “divorced couples” are to blame for environmental climate change as they now need two of everything.
This is the same man who left the Liberal Party (was not offered re-selection by them) and opened his own party when he suggested that the Liberals should pass a law that only “Christians” should be allowed to vote.
He won his seat due to Labor preferences. His own vote during the elections was only 1.3% and without preferences he would never have been seen again.
So, unfortunately, even if he comes back with new ideas about climate change, he has no political credibility and no-one will listen to him because he is an idiot.”
Of course it doesn’t change my appreciation for his sensible opinion on this subject.
Luke,
Every stream in the MDB flows into the Murray.
They are all part of your Murray.
How about that wager?
Pikey.
Somehow dude – the Murray headwaters…. Murray inflows – sheesh –
AGAIN – this is the analysis – http://www.mdba.gov.au/system/files/MDBA_Drought_Update_April_2009.pdf perhaps you might try not being thick and read it.
and the climate science explains why the bottom bit of Australia is missing out on rain.
reported as http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25302085-2682,00.html
As for wagers – hmmmm – not likely in a time of possible El Nino formation. But hey – if you want to impress me – don’t do a sample size of one season. You right you rules down for forecasting and show us how good you are over the last 120 years.
And I have said continually – it will rain again at some point. But that’s not the issue – it’s how many years in 10 you’re in drought. The next drought is always around the corner. As grandad used to say – water saving starts when the tank stops overflowing.
duh – “write your rules”
Murray Basin suffers ninth consecutive dry autumn
10/06/2009 4:05:00 PM
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/murray-basin-suffers-ninth-consecutive-dry-autumn/1537260.aspx?src=enews
The Murray-Darling Basin has experienced its ninth consecutive autumn with below average rainfall, with just 90 gigalitres of water flowing into the system, according to the latest Murray-Darling Basin Authority Drought Update.
Water Minister Senator Penny Wong has latched on to the latest inflow figures as evidence of the need for further action on climate change and water “reform” in the Basin.
The latest Murray-Darling Basin Authority Drought Update reports that Murray system inflows for May were only 90 gigalitres, slightly above the record low of 75GL in 1902, but well below the long term average of 390GL.
MDBA chief executive Rob Freeman said that for the June 2008 to May 2009 water year, Murray system inflows were the third driest in 118 years of records.
“This follows the seventh driest year in 2007-08 and the driest on record in 2006-07,” Mr Freeman said.
“Murray system inflows have been below average for nine out of the last ten years.
“Autumn is a critical time for wetting of the catchment before winter rainfall, but unfortunately, this did not eventuate.
“The prospects for irrigation allocations in 2009-10 will be highly dependent on future rainfall and system inflows.
“Overall, the outlook for the 2009-10 water year remains grim, and is similar to the previous two years.”
The Bureau of Meteorology’s recent June to August rainfall outlook for south-eastern Australia indicated a 50:50 chance of above average rainfall, but also an increased risk of an El Niño developing during winter and spring.
Senator Wong said the “disturbing statistics” confirm the need to take action to tackle the impacts of climate change and help Basin communities and irrigators prepare for a future with less water.
“Our $12.9 billion Water for the Future plan includes a comprehensive strategy to restore the Murray-Darling Basin to health – including $3.7 billion already committed to specific projects nominated by the States to make irrigation infrastructure more efficient,” Senator Wong said.
“We have also committed $3.1 billion towards buying water to return to the Basin’s stressed rivers and wetlands – recently announcing the biggest environmental water purchase in Australia’s history of some 240 gigalitres of water entitlements from Twynam Agricultural Group.”
MDBA active (useable water) storage for the Murray system at the end of May 2009 was 11 per cent of capacity (980GL), which was well below the May long term average of 4670GL.
The total volume of water in all Basin storages managed by the MDBA or by State governments, was about 3,940 GL, or 17 per cent of capacity.
Mr Freeman said the northern Basin had received some rain in May which resulted in only a small streamflow response and very little of that water was expected to reach Menindee Lakes.
He said the prolonged and severe dry period continued to severely impact on wetlands and floodplain ecosystems across the southern half of the Basin.
“Small amounts of environmental water were made available during autumn to avoid critical loss of threatened species, reduce the risks of irretrievable damage and provide drought refuges at certain sites,” he said.
Luke,
When are you going to realise that the ability to “Google” information is not a passport to knowledge or understanding of a topic.
But I have no explanation for why the new MDB Authority are just as prone to sensationalist media releases as their predecisors.
In relation to the above:
1: As explained on this site previously. There were no dams on the MDB in 1902. Nor were there any stream flow records prior to the 1970s. The claims made are at best wild assumptions.
2:I have been monitoring inflows to the dams in the MDB for some years and the claim that only 90 gigalitres flowed into dams in May IS FALSE.
Just to list 3 dams.
Dartmouth 16,000 megalitres.
Hume 78,000 megalitres.
Eildon 18,000megalitres.
Total: 120,000 megalitres. That is 120 gigalitres from just 3 dams.
I do not have time to list all of the balance but it adds up to nearly double what is claimed in your reference.
3: Of more interest is the claims made elsewhere that supply of water for human consumption on the Murray is critically low.
Fact. There are approximately 1.4 million people that rely on the Murray for domestic and industrial water. ( does not include agriculture or mining).
These, people require 2,900 megalitres of water per week, plus about 300 megalitres for stream losses.
Total: 3,200 megalitres per week.
Present weekly inflow into Dartmouth, Hume and Eildon is, 28,500 megalitres per week. That is 9 times the weekly requirement.
Presently the total water stored in these 3 storages is, 1,548,360 megalitres.
If all runin ceased
tomorrow there would be sufficient water for human consumption and industry for over 9 years.
Sadly thereis no topic of National discussion that has been so falsified as the MDB issue.
More sadly is the fact that while all of this misinformation is being widly disseminated the real disaster of the MDB is being totally neglicted.
Bob Brown, Tim Flannery, Paul Sinclare, Penny Wong and blind followers like you Luke will be condemned by history for blindly following a perceived problem while overlooking the real invironmental disaster.
Pikey.
I stopped reading here “There were no dams on the MDB in 1902. Nor were there any stream flow records prior to the 1970s. The claims made are at best WILD assumptions.”
I’ve spoken to them and know how they do their calcs. You’re just PIG ignorant and it’s not worth discussing if that your level of intelligence.
Record low rainfall in the last catchment produces rapid low inflows in a drought without precedent. Possible causes AGW interaction with SAM and STR.
If you fancy yourself as a player email the CEO and tell’em we’re they’re wrong – hahahahahhahahahahahaha
I have.
I have also communicated with Penny Wong, who looks like being the most idiologically driven and incompetent minister since Jim Cairns of the Whitlam gov.
And while your musing about this, have you ever considered why we no longer hear about ” dead and dying red gums.”
It is because that was also a lie and we have finally been able to expose that fact.
Luke, personal abuse does not destroy FACTS.
Seems that abuse and an inability to accept reason are your only qualities.
Pikey.
Even more pathetic – you haven’t bothered to engage the science behind the report. Indeed you’ve confounded the Snowy supplementation in your “figures”. Give it away Pikey – it’s obvious you don’t read anything that doesn’t suit.