When I see people holding ‘stop climate change’ placards, I wish for a new environmental movement. One that understands and accepts planet earth. An environment movement that understand, whether or not we do something about carbon dioxide emissions, there will be climate change. There has always been climate change on planet earth.
Interestingly, a Queensland University of Technology study released today has concluded that climate change during the latter part of the Pleistocene, not the arrival of aboriginals, drove the extinction of Australia’s megafauna.
“That culprit is climate,” Mr Price said. “It does appear that climate change was the major factor in driving the megafauna extinct.”
Mr Price says the dig has revealed dramatic changes in habitat – and consequently fauna – during the latter part of the Pleistocene epoch, which stretched from 1.8 million to 10,000 years ago.
“It tends to be the case that over the entire period of the deposition, the faunas and the habitats were changing so it reflected the contraction and possibly local extinction of different sorts of habitats, mainly the woodland and vine-thicketed habitat,” he said.
“That’s associated with different species going at least locally extinct over that same period.”
He says that in the oldest sections of the dig, which date back about 45,000 years, species that depended on woodland and vine thickets dominated.
In the mid-section, there was a mix of species that were either “habitat generalists” or preferred open areas, which Mr Price says suggests the environment was evolving toward grasslands.
“By the latest Pleistocene, species dependent on wetter conditions disappear from the fossil record, while animals such as long-nosed bandicoots that aren’t habitat-specific remain,” he said.
And I say,Greenpeace and WWF may be rich, may be multinational corporations, but the bottomline is, they can not stop climate change.
And at last, a new progressive and evidence-based environmental organisation, the Australian Environment Foundation (the AEF), will be launched this Sunday and almost has a website.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This is so so wrong. Of course there has been climate change in the past but THIS time we are the cause. Our CO2 emissions are changing the climate faster than at any other time in recent history.
Our agriculture and society depends on a reasonably stable climate which is what we have now. Societies actions will take the Earth into an unstable area where agriculture and living will be much more difficult.
To say that just because the climate has changed from natural triggers in the past means that it is always like this is just ridiculous.
Ender, I did not make any comment in the above post about what is/isn’t currently driving global warming (the 0.6C average increase over the last 100 odd years), just that I would like to belong to an environment group that accepted climate change as part and parcel of living on planet earth. Best, Jen.
PS Good to know you are still about.
All environmental groups accept that climate change is a part of the earths history. What they do not accept is that just because the Earth’s climate has changed in the past this means that this climate change event is not anthropogenic.
This is what the skeptics are saying. They are in effect saying just because, lets say, 10 road accidents in the past on a particular road were caused by vehicle defects then a new accident was also caused by vehicle defects even when the evidence points to the fact that it was driver fatigue.
Past events only show the effects of Climate Change not set the cause.
Ender,
Our emissions of CO2 are NOT chnaging the climate faster than in any time in history – and for once could you present me with an unambigious FACT verifying your claim? If you base that on the Hockey stick used by the IPCC, then that graph has been discredited by BOTH sides of the argument.
But have a read of this address to the US Senate.
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=238162
All the climate changes are derived from computer models, not observed FACTS.
In fact the observed facts are pointing to a slight cooling.
Sorry Louis you are wrong. The Hockey Stick is only one analysis of the proxy data and it has only been discredited by paid skeptics.
Please read the excellent Deltoid post
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/McKitrick/
for a thorough analysis of the arguments against the hockey stick.
That address was by a climate change skeptic. Practically all the science in it is just plain wrong.
The Global Warming data is not from computer models at all. They are observed measurements. The climate change scenerios are from computer models however these models are now very sophisticated and are calibrated with real observed data.
The observed facts point a global temperature rise of approx 0.6 degs. Please post the peer-reviewed article that shows otherwise.
Actually I just realised that I did not say that the Earth’s Climate is changing faster than at any other time in history.
I simply said “All environmental groups accept that climate change is a part of the earths history”
The Earths climate has experienced changes in the past. Some apparantly where caused by a meteorite igniting large coal deposits and others by super volcanoes and so on. This does not mean in anyway that this time it is not us.
Mind you one of them was a doozy – a runaway. There is evidence that the Permian Extinction that destroyed about 95% of the Earths flora and fauna may have been caused by a runaway thermal event. This time the methane calthrates got released as well. So think about that when you see schemes to exploit these reserves.
Jennifer, I found this post to be pedantic. As Ender said, it is climate skeptics who put words in the “environment movement’s” mouth – “environmentalists” are not saying that climate change has never occurred, or even that natural climate change can or should be stopped.
When someone holds up a placard that says “Stop climate change”, you have to be ingnorant or a pedant to read this as meaning anything other than “stop human-induced climate change by curbing human-induced greenhouse gas emissions”.
I put “environment movement” and “environmentalist” in inverted commas, because using such expressions is pidgeon-holing. There is no one movement for you to be annoyed with or frustrated with anymore. Caring about the environment isn’t a special club. You don’t need to be tree-hugging dreadlocked hippy to care about the environment, and arguably the most influential movers and shakers in environmental protection these days can be found in the upper echelons of industry, not on communes or in inner-west Sydney sharehousing. Some of those who practice the greenest living are professionals building new green homes and catching public transport to work and eating vegetarian, not unwashed lentil-eating would be communists, despite what many commentators presume.
You classify yourself as part of the environment movement don’t you?
I’m interested in the launch of the AEF, but, and I’m sure you understand, like with any interest group whether left or right, greenie or pro-business, my BS detector will be armed and turned up to high when i take a peek at their website.
Steve, as an environmentalist, I am interested to know:
1. What is your position on GM food crops and why?
2. What is your position on logging of forests in Tasmania and why?
3. What is your position on the importation of hardwood furniture from SE Asia and why?
Hope you/others have time to answer these questions – that yes, could be considered pedantic.
But I am genuinely interested in your answers. Best, Jen
PS I suspect that many/most people watching the evening news read the placards literally ie. as being about stopping climate change and keeping the earth safe. I wonder if any surveys have been done?
Re placards: i disagree. Global warming has been in general discussion since the late 80s. I don’t think the placards are unethically or ignorantly fooling anyone. It is a better sound bite on a placard than “Stop anthropogenic global warming”. Easier to spell too 🙂
Anyway to answer your questions.
My easy answer is that I have no answers. I’m aware of the debate on these issues, but they are not issues that i have thought about as much as climate change, only what I’ve read in newspapers, which are not my first source of info on issues I really care about and put time into. I acknowledge that the questions are about ‘tricky’ issues.
I don’t mean to duck your questions though, so here’s where i’m up to:
1. GM food crops could be good, but they could also be bad. I’m torn. In a way i find it sad that we would need to come up with genetically modified crops to solve hunger issues around the world, I also think its good that science can solve difficult problems. I see GM foods as a high tech offering. As a means to solve problems, I wonder if there could be “better” solutions than GM foods to hunger issues, such as better land management, better understanding of climate, reduced social strife and better living standards in poorer countries. I put “better” in inverted commas because I know it is a subjective word, and can appreciate that other people will have a different idea of “better” to me.
I think that companies that push GM are doing so primarily for profit rather than helping to reduce hunger, which makes me skeptical of the benefits as companies report them (which isn’t to say that GM foods couldn’t reduce hunger). I don’t like the term ‘franken foods’ and find i have to filter through much of what i read in the papers on this issue because it is too polarised and emotional. I am similarly sceptical of many environment group claims on the issue. I don’t have a strong POSITION on this issue.
2. I’ve been to Tasmania once. Much of it is extremely beautiful, parts of it that i drove through on the west coast were blighted enough by logging (or mining) to get an emotional reaction out of me. Hard not to feel glumb driving through a landscape of dead.
Flying over the franklin, I was amazed at how the forest looked. It made other national parks that ive seen look like botanic gardens. This was a truly wild forest. I don’t like the thought of it being cut down.
However, I know that we need wood. And that I use wood. I would rather the wood we use here came from Australia than from another country with laxer environmental standards. I don’t know how much wood we need to log to feed our own need for wood. I don’t know how much native forest we need to log, or whether plantations can accomodate our need for wood. I know that we export wood ourselves, and am loath to feel good about chopping down tasmanian trees to export to japan. I wonder if it might be possible to convince people that they don’t need fancy furniture, that plantation pine or even recycled wood can make attractive furniture. I would hope that Tassie forest is more important than nice furniture. I have no opinion on what is an appropriate amount of logging in Tas, or whether the current arrangements are good, because I don’t know how much Tas wood contributes or how much we need.
I’m less interested in questions of jobs in the timber industry. Continuing logging for the sole purpose of maintaining jobs is not a sufficient reason to log. However, there should be an orderly transition away from logging (if we decide we don’t want to log) to minimise hardship.
I have no POSITION on logging in Tasmania.
3. I cannot see a good reason why we should import hardwood furniture from SE asia. If they were able to grow wood more sustainably and with greater ease then yes, but I don’t think that’s the case. My understanding is that deforestation and lax environmental standards are a big issue in many parts of SE asia.
PS Asking people what their position is, is a good way to polarise a discussion, which is i think not a good thing. I think its a real shame that lawyers and politicians think/talk like this, in position statements and adversarial tones. What do you think? I like discussions that start with “What are your thoughts on….”. Or “I was thinking ….. What do you think about ?”
Jennifer, after following the debate on human activity/climate change for many years I think the jury is still out. I don’t consider it reasonable for anyone to take a strong position either way at this point in time.
I am very interested in the proposed AEF, in particular it’s non-politically aligned tag. At present the environmental movement and vote is associated with the Greens, presenting a problem for those of us who are environmentally minded but with no wish to also support their far left agenda. The environment has been the loser from our lack of involvment. Maybe we can promote our environmental concerns through this AEF, as long as the political activists are kept at arms length.
Steve,
Thanks for thoughts. Point taken about use of the word ‘position’.
But, I do think there is a generally accepted environmental position on many issues that is not necessarily based on a good understanding of the issues.
Rick Giles explains why we import so much timber from overseas (and likely to import more) in his comments following, I think, my April 21 post about Timber communities in the Pilliga-Goonoo.
The many comments following this post give some insight into the very different rural as opposed to city ‘position’ on some of these issues?
Geoff, Fingers crossed the AEF fulfills the need.
Ender,
The only fundamental measurement is the MSU temperatures of the lower troposphere. NO rise of statistical significance has been observed, and what trend is more than likely to be due to the effect of data truncation.
As I said Ender, the facts contradict the AGW assertion.
However, I suspect King Canute would have a little more trouble convincing you of the immense power you seem to think we have over the planet earth.
None of you realise that underneath us is an enormous source of energy, a source that probably has a greater influence on the temperature variation of the miniscule earthian atmosphere than we mere humans could possibly imagine. You, like King Canute’s courtier, seem to think we are all powerful. Perhaps in Climate Fantasy land but not in reality.
Yet the earth as a potential source of heat (ie energy) is not factored into any GCM. One onvious reason is that we know so little about its internal workings.
And as Senator InHofe has noted, if the truth be known, we know even less about climate.
Louis
We know well enough about the Earths climate to know that CO2 causes heating. The results of that heating are unknown. In the past similar rises in CO2 have lead to rapid and dramatic climate change. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the current CO2 levels caused by humans burning fossil fuels and the highest in 400 000 years will have a similar effect eventually. Your are wrong about the MSU data – when the satellite was looking at the right part of the atmosphere by recalibrating the microwave receivers a heating trend in the upper troposhere was seen.
To get paid to say different as some of the climate skeptics do may eventually turn out to be criminal behaviour.
Where is your heat flow data about the heat output of the Earth? What is its magnitude? You are a scientist. I can get away with using other people’s data because unlike you I did not complete a science degree. You have no such luxury. For you to say “underneath us is an enormous source of energy” is not enough. You, as a scientist, have to include its magnitude in an SI unit so it can be compared to other forcings. You have to show the results of heat flow measurements and experiments. Until then the statement “that probably has a greater influence on the temperature variation of the miniscule earthian atmosphere” is just that, words on a blog, that have no more relevance or truth than my words.
It is the same as with the ice cores – if you genuinely can show that the Earths internal heat has a greater influence than other forcings then you should publish a scientific paper, not simply say things to deceive the ignorant as most of your skeptics literature is.
Ender,
“We know well enough about the Earths climate to know that CO2 causes heating”
Based on what,
In the past similar rises in CO2 have lead to rapid and dramatic climate change…
??? Really?
“Your are wrong about the MSU data – when the satellite was looking at the right part of the atmosphere by recalibrating the microwave receivers a heating trend in the upper troposhere was seen.”
“The satellite” was looking……
Roy Spencer might suggest you re-check your facts…….
With respect to the term “climate change” can I point out that the IPCC has tried to define “climate change” as only being due to anthropogenic factors eg. carbon dioxide increase, ie. mainly a post 19C process.
Changing climate in the rest of geological history and for all other causes is trivialised as “climate variation”.
Change sounds more confronting than the limp wristed variation, hey !!
Green activists know well the power of claiming the language.
We save rainforest, not jungle.
Wetlands are supremely fashionable, not swamps.
Climate sceptics could go fishing more if the IPCC had not spent over 15 years twisting and slanting climate and earth science to fit its agenda of painting increasing greehouse gases as the dominant driver of “climate change”.
I see Enders post on May 30 where he says, “Our agriculture and society depends on a reasonably stable climate which is what we have now.”
Can I just there has never been a “stable climate” that I am aware of and our civilisation has risen through thousands of years of continual changes in climate.
Enders goes on, “Societies actions will take the Earth into an unstable area where agriculture and living will be much more difficult.”
Over a couple of centuries “societies actions” cause us to live longer, we work less, resources are cheaper, famine is less, agricultural yields are rising, sounds horrific Enders.
Loius – Here we go again – based on basic physics that you seem to have forgotton – revisit our previous conversations and the others on all the other sites where you have tried this one.
Yes really – Look at my first post and reread it.
And most people diagree with Spencer – this is one http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
Warwick
No – the IPCC says that anthropogenic factors have become large as CO2 from fossil fuels accumulates in the atmosphere. Nowhere does it say that it is the only factor.
Here is the definitive list of forcings
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/26/14778#SEC1
If you take the time to look at it it includes all known forcings.
Large Climate variation in the past usually had a trigger. This time we are the trigger.
Perhaps skeptics should go fishing because you are contributing NOTHING to science. Your only input to the debate is trying to pick holes in real scientists work. The minute you think you have one flaw in one dataset then you trumpet to the world that Global Warming is a myth. This is not science.
Do you notice that Loius never responds when challenged to actually do real research. I challenged him to provide heat flow measurements from real research that he has done to support his hypothesis that the Earth contributes significant heat the the atmosphere. He is a scientist capable of publishing a peer reviewed paper on the subject however all I get is silence. Perhaps you should ask him why he has not done this.
You and the other skeptics are not doing science, not doing research and not contributing to science. You cloak yourselves in the words of science to try to convince less well informed people that everything is OK and that is is quite OK to pump CO2 into the air when the evidence is quite clear that this is not the case. If you did real science and were not led by people that are being paid by large fossil fuel corporations so that there will no restrictions on fossil fuels then you would see this.
The only people slanting climate data are yourselves. The IPCC is not the only body researching global warming. You cannot possibly accuse that all the climate scientists of the world are deliberately slanting data to fit an agenda. If the IPCC did what you say then their data would be at odds with all the other scientists not affiliated with the IPCC. Do you really think all climate scientists in the world are part of the IPCC?
Of course the climate is stable. For large periods (in human terms) between variations there have been stable periods. At the moment a farmer can reasonably expect the climate to be the same from year to year and cities can then be supplied with food. With increased warming this may not be the case in the future.
The couple of centuries of progress, like anything, have come at a price. All the rises in yields and progress have been possible only because of cheap energy from fossil fuels. As the saying goes “there is no such thing as a free lunch” we are about to pay the price of this progress – either through Peak Oil or Global Warming.
Hi Jennifer,
I took a look at the AEF website. Looks nice, even under construction.
Do you have any info on how AEF started? Who are the founders? Where is the seed capital coming from? Who wrote their charter? Do they have a big bunch of members already? Who are they?
Thanks,
Stephen
Hi Stephen, The AEF emerged from the Eureka Environment Forum an event that was held in Ballarat last December on the 150th Anniversary of the Stockade. The forum was attended by a diverse group including university professors, bushwalkers, miners, fire-fighters, foresters, farmers – there were delegates from every Australian State. This and other information should be on the site for Sunday.
“Thought that is silenced is always rebellious. Majorities, of course, are often mistaken. This is why the silencing of minorities is necessarily dangerous. Criticism and dissent are the indispensable antidote to major delusions.” ~ Alan Barth
Sorry Louis I am not silencing you. I am inviting you to speak out with verifiable data that you have discovered.
It seems to me that there is a lot of wasted energy among people arguing about whether this or that data is correct or not. Surely there is not a living, breathing, thinking person on the planet that does not believe that we could be doing a better job of looking after it. The important point is that we start taking steps towards a healthier future and not take the easy ‘do nothing’ option. Nature doesn’t stop.I would rather be walking the right way then jogging the wrong.
Totally agree Graham. This to and fro of this data and that data is slowing the efforts to stop Global Warming. However it is the paid skeptics that convinced the leaders in the US and Australia that reducing CO2 will harm the economy. In these countries the short term gain of a strong economy overrides environmental concerns.
Also it is not the paid GW skeptics job to disprove Global Warming. They are employed to inject doubt into the argument. If they do it loudly enough and cleverly enough (and the are both loud and clever) then this will make it seem like that the problem of GW is not proven. Like a good criminal defence lawyer they just have to prove reasonable doubt to get the defendant off – the fact that the person is guilty or innocent is irrelevant. By picking real or false (they don’t really care) nuggets of uncertainty in an uncertain science they hope that this will prevent action on curbing CO2 emissions that their masters think will hurt their profits and share price. The trouble is that this is the Earth we are talking about here not some criminal. Unless these people have another Earth tucked away somewhere they are going to have to live with whatever results this deception campaign brings.
The result of this is that working scientists (not myself) spend their time refuting this FUD campaign when this could be better spent researching the problem. Meanwhile the earth is heating.
Ender,
the only way one could show that the earth is heating is to graph its temperature over time.
I thought it was the atmosphere which was central to your hypothesis.
Now it is the mass of the earth that is getting warmer.
Just how is CO2 produced by humans able to achieve that?
Love to hear how your theory explains it.
Ender,
I merely point to results that others have empirically determined. As a geologist of some 30 years professional experience in practising the scientific method ( mineral exploration is the zenith of the scientific method, in which we pose hypotheses, test them and which are either confirmed or rejected).
We in the mining geology profession are too busy looking for your next raw materials to be too concerned with dogmatic aberrations, Ender, but so far you have posted little but second had interpretations.
So let’s get to basics – FACTS.
Has the earth’s mean temperature increased over the time interval asserted by CO2 advocates? I have not seen any data that supports that assertion.
Pointing to glaciers, ice caps or other proxies is not the same as pointing to an unequivocal temperature record.
The problem is that the infrastructure to produce that evidence is absent except in the industrialised countries, and then the sampling is biassed.
I have been threatening to publish the technically correct way to estimate the earth’s global temperature from instrumental measurement, and must confide that I have not done so, mostly due to the fact that I am paid by non – coal and oil – companies. Hardly an excuse, of course, but I will.
As far as I am concerned, from a geostatistical sense, no one seems to have estimated the earth’s global temperature in a scienticially valid manner, except for Roy Spencer’s data which use quite different measuring methods. As his data is confirmed from the independent weather balloon data, and accepting Brignell’s observation that truncated data sets yield trends in every case, I would settle on the provisional conclusion that the earth’s mean temperature has not changed during historical times.
This position contradicts the recent and geological record climate variations, to which I admit, (what else could a scientific mind expect) but that raises the interesting porblem of what caused the observed “global” temperature variations as shown on http://www.climateaudit.org
There are answers but not in the library shelves you assume.
Loius – this is good even for you. Lets quote from one of your posts “None of you realise that underneath us is an enormous source of energy, a source that probably has a greater influence on the temperature variation of the miniscule earthian atmosphere than we mere humans could possibly imagine”
I never said that the Earth itself is either heating or contributes significant heat to the atmosphere YOU DID. I also challenged you provide evidence, data or research to back up this claim however you said you were too busy. So how about you stop peddling this crap all over the internet until you do.
For all people who are sick to death of this and want to read something that explains the whole story please read this site
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/ClimateFrameset.html
It is probably the best.
Also since Loius cannot find a graph that show temperature increases here it is
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/VariationsSurfaceTemp.html
ENDER,
May I quote you?
The result of this is that working scientists (not myself) spend their time refuting this FUD campaign when this could be better spent researching the problem. Meanwhile the earth is heating.
If you are going to quote me then you should put in “the Earths Atmosphere is heating”. My last line was just a mistake.
I’ll have a go at these…
1. What is your position on GM food crops and why?
I have no ethical problems with GM foods. I suspect that both their present advantages and health risks have been massively overhyped.
2. What is your position on logging of forests in Tasmania and why?
I’m a big fan of plantation timber. It is a great way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere plus provides a useful building material. I don’t support clear-felling native forests. I don’t have a problem with selective harvesting of valuable native trees.
3. What is your position on the importation of hardwood furniture from SE Asia and why?
Not a big fan. In principle, it could be done sustainably, in practice, however, this is rare.
“With respect to the term “climate change” can I point out that the IPCC has tried to define “climate change” as only being due to anthropogenic factors eg. carbon dioxide increase, ie. mainly a post 19C process.”
With all due respect Warwick, you have no clue.
The IPCC defines climate change as
“Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.”
You’ve got confused with the United Nations Framwork Convention On Climate Change, which uses for a human only defination for the purpose of the convention only.
This of course would be clear had you actually taken the time to read and understand the IPCC’s body of work.
Ken,
with respect, the IPCC formally defined climate chnage as being due to anthropogenic causes.
Furthermore there is no such thing as a mean state of climate change, since a changing thing, by virtue of being changeable, has no consistent mean, and then mean “WHAT”?
Ken,
The IPCC document is not a scientific document, but a political one.
For a start, it was not peer reviewed was it.
Ender,
Just a mistake was it? What else have you posted here that could also be described as “just a mistake”.
Louis,
The definition that I quoted is the definition used by the IPCC. I copied it straight out of the “Scientific Basis”. Simply asserting that the IPCC “formally defined climate chnage as being due to anthropogenic causes” without provided any evidence is total garbage.
Also the IPCC’s scientific documents are peer-reviewed. This is clear to anyone who actually reads them.
Nothing compared to you Loius. At least my posts are scientifically accurate and show some understanding of basic physics – yours are neither!!! Also I am not part of a paid, cynical movement to try derail efforts to hold Global Warming to a possibly safe level. You and the others will be judged by the future and there might be a lot of very very angry people then who will remeber your group’s opposition. So for your sake I hope you are right.
Oh and I misspelled the word remember – therefore GW is rubbish.
Ken,
I did not write here that the scientific documents on which the IPCC summary is based were not peer reviewed, just that the IPCC report itself is not peer reviewed.
No the report is only reviewed by the 1200 scientists that composed it. I would call that peer-review.
It is not peer review if it is reviewed by those with ownership and carriage of the document – those who wrote it!
It is like Gary Jones (in an article referenced by Quiggin) saying that the 60 scientists who work on water and Murray Darling Basin issues all disagree with Jennifer Marohasy and by-the-way they all work for me/are connected with the CRC in some capacity.
Louis, the IPCC reviews are peer reviewed. The Addendix of the Scientific Basis lists the names and locations of the reviewers. Once again, this could be easily found out by reading the document.
Jennifer, the reviewers of each chapter are not the authors.