Since the election of the Rudd Labor government last year Australians seem to be under some sort of delusion that what we do here in Australia will actually have an impact on global climate. These delusions seem to have increased with the release of the Garnaut Climate Change Review Draft Report last Friday.
The front page of the weekend edition of the Sydney Morning Herald suggests that unless we immediately start work on a carbon trading scheme to operate from 2010 – and accept that the price of petrol, gas, power and food will rise – then it will be the end of agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin by 2100, 5.5 million people will be exposed to dengue virus, it will be the end of the Great Barrier Reef and the beginning of political instability in neighbouring countries.
This is simply not true.
Indeed even Ross Garnaut acknowledges in his report that for there to be any impact on global carbon dioxide levels, the world’s major economies must do something about their emissions. The Professor lists China, the US, the European Union, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia then India, as the world’s largest greenhouse emitters and in that order.
Emissions from Australia make up only about 1 percent of the world total. In reality, we are a nation of just 21 million people at the bottom of the world. There are 1.3 billion people in China (India 1.1 billion, US 304 million and Indonesia 231 million) and given China and most other developing countries have no intension of limiting their greenhouse gas emissions in the short to medium term atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases are likely to continue to increase.
And I am not conceding that the apparently elevated levels of carbon dioxide are driving global temperatures.
Indeed atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have increased significantly over the last few decades and global temperatures did increase over the period 1975 to 1998, but since then they appear to have plateaued.
The prediction was that 2007 would be really hot, but it wasn’t.
There has been a breakdown in the correlation between increasingly levels of carbon dioxide and global temperatures.
Instead of acknowledging this in his report Professor Garnaut has deferred to two fellows at the Australian National University who he describes as “eminent econometricians” and quotes them apparently concluding that “viewed from the perspective of 30 or 50 years ago, the temperature recorded in most of the last decade lie above the confidence band produced by any model that does not allow for a warming trend” (pg. 113).
Why doesn’t the Professor just acknowledge that over the last 10 years, viewed from now, there has been no global warming and that now is not the time to introduce a radical new emission trading scheme that is sure to force up the price of everything, particularly given that our big neighbours, including Indonesia with a population of 231 million, have no plans to do the same.
The bottom line is that the introduction of an emissions trading scheme into Australia is likely to deliver real economic hardship while delivering no environmental benefit. Indeed it is absurd to suggest that the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in Australia will have any impact on the environment of the Murray Darling Basin or the Great Barrier Reef.
Australians are indeed deluding themselves if they think that by simply paying more for their petrol, they can influence global temperature trends, never mind that there has been no warming for 10 years now.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well said! Garnaut’s Draft Climate Report is a consultation document – so I urge all Australian’s who are blessed with the gifts of realism and common sense to tell Garnaut where he can shove his futile ETS!
What I find most disgraceful is this idiotic and clearly premeditated lying which equates hypothetical greenhouse-warming with drought.
Nothing could be more stupid and dishonest than this. Its obvious that if we successfully stimulated greenhouse-warming we would get more and not less rain. For these guys to lie about this is beyond disgraceful. And only mass-sackings can put things right.
AGW delivers climate inequality. Australians need to wake up that AGW is here.
Global rainfall impacts are a much larger concern than temperature. To not consider the changes already documented in detailed studies of the Walker Circulation, Indian Ocean, and Southern Annular Mode is irresponsible in the extreme.
The wheels have fallen off drought relief in this country. Some farmers have had the next 300 years of payments already. The review is now underway.
http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/drought/national_review_of_drought_policy
Drought in Australia has sooty AGW fingerprints all over it.
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/721285/csiro-bom-report-future-droughts.pdf
Bird you need to be deported back to la la land for comprehension deficit disorder.
Paul how do we tell him where to shove it? I think he doesn’t have one in his opinion. I expect Penny will get it Wong too. These guys think the world can change the weather but more than that OZ can do it’s own and lead the world. Pure gold demented BS.
“These guys” do not think Australia can change climate by unilateral action. To keep quoting this is simply mischievous. Garnaut has discussed this at length as the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Seems the Federal Opposition are substantially behind Garnaut – looks like bipartisan support all the way – http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23977282-2702,00.html
DHMO:
Here you go: contactus@garnautreview.org.au
The home page of the Garnaut report:
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/home
Tell Prof Robert Mugarnaut what you think.
Jennifer: “This is simply not true” depends on what you mean by simply and true.
“simply paying more” is exactly what encourages the average shopper to look around at alternatives since there is very little in the way of free stuff at the supermarket.
Right on the button Jennifer.
There is another way of looking at is as well.
If the earth is fixing, ie sequestering, about 200 billion tonnes pa of Co2 naturally, isnt the measly 360m tonnes pa we put into the air a bit irrelevant.
Its not even a snack on a hot day.
Rudd was over here on the weekend doing an inspection of the Coorong and Lower lakes, and exhorted people to have a look at the shift in the water line, and see that as a perfect example of the effects of climate change.
He didnt have the guts to go on and say that, by the way, my ETS whatever final form that will take, will make bugger all difference to that level.
And neither will their COAG outcomes of that week. The Prictorians will see to that.
Gavin, ““simply paying more” is exactly what encourages the average shopper to look around at alternatives since there is very little in the way of free stuff at the supermarket.” At the supermarket we have a variety of choices for any one item. With an ETS there is no choice as every item will cost more due to increases in transport costs, manufacturing costs etc being passed on the consumer.
Your analogy is also flawed as fuel and power alternatives are more expensive than traditioinal fuel and power sources so either way the consumer will pay more for all goods and services. If, as Garnaut recommends, lower income earners are compensated for the increased costs then the narket signal is removed and the ETS is distorted so that middle and higher income earners bear the brunt of the scheme.
Here, here!!!! Not going far enough with this, Jennifer.
From now on – I’m chucking all my accumulated refuse out the car window onto the road side. Chip packets, coke cans…the lot. After all, it’s a hassle to keep in the car until a rubbish bin presents itself. Car looks a mess. My quality of life is certainly diminished.
After all….my little bit of rubbish is only an infentesimal portion of total rubbish Australia-wide? I can’t end mess on my own, can I? Foolish to think otherwise.
Not to mention that it is statistically proven that road side rubbish has not increased since 1998, of course.
It’s my moral right not to take responsibility for my actions. If everyone taught such good sense to their offspring – surely we’d live in a better world.
“every item will cost more due to increases in transport costs” is hardly new.
There is a lot of squawking going on, must be broken nest eggs. Keep an eye out for panicked chooks with dried egg on their feet hey.
Luke – 2008 produced a record sorghum crop harvest in what ABC Rural described as Ideal summer cropping conditions. The only drought we experienced was too many irrigators placing too greater demand on a finite resource. The wheat belt received good summer rain and a bumper crop was anticipated, a drop in autumn rains offered doubt but now most areas are experiencing good winter rain as I write this. Farming in Australia has always been risky and long droughts are part of it’s history – the longest drought was at the turn of the century well before CO2 emissions could have offered any influence.
I’m afraid the CSIRO has lost credibility IMHO since it’s recent exaggerated AGW ponderings.
Pandanus; increased costs will only depend on the size of your footprint
Pandanus
I take your point about rubbishing the country side. Mine and Jens comments were more in the line of showing that we cannot act alone, as anything we do, will have nil effect on all rest of the world, who are rubbishing our road side as well.
That is different to us being socially responsible about what we chuck out the window.
BTW to those who say that Garnaut has mentioned this issue in his report, the fact that he has done so, doesnt negate it in any way. It still stands.
I was going to add another home grown comment but got totally side tracked by this fascinating site
http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/
Oh well cancel the MILLIONS – and mate we mean $100Ms over decades on drought relief TODAY !
Send the cheque to me.
If you read the report – we have not had evaporative demand in droughts like now, and science has specific information on meteorological mechanisms as to why these droughts are occurring. Smells of coal dust ! Sooty AGW fingerprints.
Nexy – I’ve decided to not pay any tax – surely it won’t matter if a few don’t pay. Hey let’s make it optional.
And I think I’ll drive at whatever speed I like – surely a few people who know what they’re doing driving fast won’t much difference. Hey let’s make it optional to stick to speed limits.
Jennifer:
Have no fear. When Australians focus on these issues, and they will when they clearly see their hip pocket being targeted, they will see these arguments to rush in for what they are, nonsense.
“In reality, we are a nation of just 21 million people at the bottom of the world.”
But don’t we “punch above our weight”, weren’t we lead by by a “man of steel”? It’s true then, as soon as we let the socialists back in we lose all our self-respect. It’s the “black-arm band” theory of climate change. Where’s Blainey when you need him.
cheers
JWH.
Patrick you’re not related to Lamna are you?
At least NSW Minister for Agriculture, Armstrong is a realist. Good to see him refuting Rudd on television yesterday, dismissing the ridiculous claim that drought is a result of climate change, (sic “global warming”…man made that is.).
Remember this Guano is a banker and we need to be very concerned about what may happen when this global warming bubble he is pumping up bursts like the subprime bubble. I’m sure we all heard him put in his disclaimer. i.e. He says clearly that his response is based on what the “scientists” are telling him. He in fact expressly disclaims all and any liability and responsibility on this basis.
You know, back in the 1980’s this joker well and good helped put up the level playing field removing protections/tarrifs to promote competition in the name of economic rationalism but here with his climateering he is doing a complete backflip based on superstition not rationalism. There is no due diligence with climateering here but there will be profiteering and the possibilities for corruption are immense.
I feel all Australians have an important fiduciary responsibility to manage our economy on sound economic principles without regard for risky superstitious climateering schemes that will make the subprime bubble look tame by comparison.
Actually, Luke, Australia is being asked to pay tax when everyone else is saying they won’t.
Nevertheless, this IS a serious problem. In response, I have unilaterally decided to cap the Williams household carbon emissions. (If my wife will let me.)
I have chosen the same level of emissions as Tim Flannery. I should make quite a profit selling the unused emission permits.
Surely anyone can understand that there is no point imposing very serious costs on our economy in moving to an ETS if the major emitters do not do the same or better. Our reductions alone will have a negligible impact on the future. This is a completely separate issue from whether there will be heat waves and droughts in the future. The analogy with littering is puerile because stopping littering imposes no cost on the litterer. Yes Garnault did acknowledge that Australia cannot usefully act alone, but then he stupidly recommends we do so anyway.
By all means design an ETS in case a globam regime is agreed, and at least then people can have a good look at it. But to suggest there is any practical benefit in donning a hair shirt alone is lunacy.
And please don’t argue that we need to move to a post carbon world anyway. The cost to Australia will be heaps lower if we do that in concert with the rest of the developed and developing world. Really, it would be best to follow rather than pioneer because the move to new technologies will undoubtably involve expensive blind alleys.
On Friday I heard a commentator likening the ETS shift to the industrial or information revolutions. That is a poor comparison because those revolutions came from the bottom as people found new ways to increase productivity and create wealth. The ETS and carbon reductions are imposed from the top and will destroy wealth.
The argument that implementing an ETS is the “moral” thing to do is a flawed argument. This assumes energy production from fossil fuels produces net negative impacts that outweigh the positives.
Not paying tax, speeding or littering may provide a small benefit for the individual but it is a net loss for the community.
Looked at from a global perspective, causing economic hardship to Australia from an over the top ETS system would provide no benefits in regards to climate and no benefits to the economy.
Recession hurts those in the lower socioeconomic classes the most. The poor in third world countries suffer the most from high energy prices, which influence food prices.
The theory that capping carbon will produce a global net positive and hence is “moral” is very uncertain.
Hang on a minute…
1. The surface temperature record is flat or trending slightly lower since 1998…
2. Meanwhile, atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, year after year after year, like clockwork.
Doesn’t this introduce some tiny dose of doubt into the robustness of the AWG hypothesis’ ability to accurately represent diabolical CO2 forcing in the climate? Never mind…
3. There are 1.34 billion Chinese. 230 million Indonesian, 304 million Americans, a billion Indians, etc.
4. We produce less than 1% of the total greenhouse gas emissions and our contribution is declining yearly relative to the rapid growth in India, Indonesia and China
5. Yet, if we 20 million Aussie don’t put on an economic hair shirt and cripple our economy… its apocalypse now for drought, the Great Barrier Reef and the Murray-Darling.
6. Meanwhile, 50% of the billions appropriate by the punitive carbon tax scheme will be redistributed to the political base of government who imposed the taxation!
If this were a plot for a novel of political intrigue crossing my desk as an editor I would reject it outright as too ridiculously fantastic to hold the readers’ sense of reality.
Alas, fact is stranger than fiction.
Gavin,
Utter nonsense, the size of the footprint is irrelevent, costs will increase relative to whatever your current footprint is now. Either it will cost you more to purchase what you and your family need to live or you have to cut back on what you need to live. And I do not mean to just survive I mean to live your life.
My carbon footprit is relatively small, I work from home, mostly computer based and do not live an extragavant lifestyle by any standards. It’s hard to when you have a mortgage to pay and a family to support. So I for one am very suspicious when Garnaut, a so called “climate expert” proclaims that I have a moral and ethical responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Especially, when from what I have read so far of his report, as he has no understanding of the science at all. He’s just accepted the IPCC as the authiority and, it seems to me, focussed on worst case scenario’s. Either the man is a complete fool or he is impecibly following his brief. If so, I for one would like to see what the scope of his project was as it would put his report in context.
“Garnaut, a so called “climate expert””
I don’t recall Garnaut ever making that claim. Could you point out where he did? He is no climate expert. He is, however, relying on the peak science bodies who are following the scientific method. Better than some bloggers on the internet.
Hang on minute, Sjt,
Ya think our peak scientific bodies “are following the scientific method better than some bloggers on the internet.”?
Wow.
I don’t know. That’s an awfully high standard you’ve set for real science, mate.
Although, wiith the climate of AGW orthodoxy intimidating researchers into coy silence at the CSIRO if they want to keep their career, you might be right!
That is just the problem; Garnaut being aware of the far reaching implications of the recommendations he was commissioned to make to the government, should have taken the advice of a range of expert scientific opinion regarding climate. He should have used such a panel of scientists to investigate the AGW claims.
He should have stated that the ‘science’ is not only not beyond reasonable doubt, but far from it.
But no, he not only fails to quest=ion it, but seems to be personally committed to the ideology of AGW, which should render him unfit to present the report.
He is so committed to the ideology that he could not resist to recite some of the AGW Creed in his report, and launch into the usual Mother Shipton prophesising.with a bit of Nostradamus and Paul Elrich thrown in as well…….
We’ve all heard it so often. .. The GBR Finished; ditto Kakadu. No more snowfields, ski resorts finished; swamped by “rising sea-levels”;
perpetual drought and the end of the MDB, etc etc.Ho hum.
“Its obvious that if we successfully stimulated greenhouse-warming we would get more and not less rain.”
You see, ignorance can only get you so far.
“That’s an awfully high standard you’ve set for real science, mate.”
With experts like Boy George, Shillers Diller, Louis Don’think, Ivan the Terrible and Ianl Whateverthat means, yes, they are pretty high standards for real science! RAOTFL. Now, if they were comedians, send them this way and they could learn a thing or to.
george,
That’s the real elephant in the lounge room, isn’t it?
There is no evidence that the climate has warmed during the past decade.
Someone will notice it, sometime.
SJT, “Garnaut, a so called “climate expert”” You are correct I don’t think that I have heard Garnaut make the claim either, however the media constantly refer to him as a climate expert and I have yet to hear him refute their claims. Pehaps he likes the kudos.
As for “peak science bodies who are following the scientific method” ROTFL. Utter nonsense! Following good scientific method does not involve acepting poor data, it does not involve driving the political agenda, it does not involve claiming a concensus where none exists, it does not involve poor data collection methods, it does not involve miniscule sample sizes, it does not involve the total reliance on modelling, it does not involve the reliance on dubious proxy data sets.
Sorry mate but it always comes back to the data, and as far as the data are concerned AGW is a long way from being proven.
It’s because of the data that the claim is being made. Read the IPCC report, it’s all there.
“There has been a breakdown in the correlation between increasingly levels of carbon dioxide and global temperatures.”
No breakdown at all.
sjt; reading your post reminds me of the Adam Sandler movie, “50 First Dates”; the memnomics of the AGW supporters is subtle, selective and mostly non-existent; correlation between CO2 and temp;
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002784.html
So with luke; I did a tour of the MDB looking at BoM sites in the area, in the catchement, and historical regional data, as gavin would say, the facts on the ground; none showed any unusual weather patterns; but all I received in return is a blizzard of irrelevant papers.
It is beyond doubt that BoM has cooked the books; Hughes has proved it, as has McIntyre; in a very entertaining post he compares Torak and Nicholl’s methodology with BoM’s. I have asked luke for an unequivocal manifestation of AGW; blather is forthcoming; but at least, unlike you, his memory seems to be still operating; his discernment is just out of kilter.
From every IPCC projection 0.2C/decade has been around about the lowest scenario. The doom monger Garnaut types need 0.3 to 0.6 for their reports to have relevance.
Even measuring from 1988 to 1998 (which is ridiculous) the rise was something like 0.25?
Of course now we have a 10 year nil rise, which implies that we aren’t near any “tipping points”.
As long as the trend stays nearer to 0.1 then 0.2 (which it is), then these reports are not worth the paper they’re written on.
Jennifer B: How can a mere woman know anything about this lot? Aren’t you protected by some giant of a fellow making the run one way or another? Perhaps a club even?
Crap Cohenite – calculate the inflows into the MDB and report back.
Cohenite,
I think the CSIRO types etc actually believe that all this modelling is worthwhile, with the emphasis on group-think. And they are obviously intelligent, so what is the problem?
Deductive science.
This is science that isn’t based on some initial empirical observation but on an abstraction, here that doubling CO2 increases the earth’s temperature; it is an inversion of Arrhenius’s claim last century that decreasing CO2 causes ice ages. In his paper he inverted the burden of proof to so that doubters had to prove his theory wrong, not he that it was correct.
Lacking any other mechanism at the time to explain ice ages, I suspect the argument was carried by reasoned persuasion. Same could be said of astronomical black holes, never observed, but an abstraction to explain galasy rotation in the absence of any other cosmic force. That abstraction was also accepted because it helped explain the existing theory. Notice that all this theorising is at the dialectic stage, requiring no experimentation.
Once a deduced theory becomes established “fact”, it is nigh well on impossible to convince its adherents that it’s flawed, because it was never based on an empirical fact but on a well reasoned and argued hypothesis.
Scientific theories based on empiricism are quickly falsified by application of its principles. Deduced theories are mainly intellectual abstractions with experiments designed to support the theory, not to falsify it.
That so much statistical manipulation occurs in climate science to make any sense of the data, let alone the dubious way it is presented as anomalies based on some arbitrary baseline, with exaggerated axes that make mountains our of molehills, strongly suggests that it is pathological science in the sense that Irving Langmuire defined decades ago.
There is no point in arguing the science because it is actually based on consensus argument – deductiove science is a technological belief system. The problem with this type of science is that it can’t be falsified.
However, it is definitely now in the political domain, and debate is very necessary but not on the basis of scientific argument, which demonstrably does not work here, but on catallactics and praxeological arguments.
But they have lost the argument in any case because of the blatant messenger shooting. Unable to counter the message, the next ploy is to shoot the messenger.
Tailight is a slight exception in that he, as a devout acolyte, knows precisely which chapter and verse in the AGW litany will show us the revealed truth. He becomes agitated when we show no deference to received authority.
As for the camp followers here, a motley assortment of screeching harridans, callow youths and sociopaths, there is little one can do. The only bright side is that once the battle is finished, they will be feeding off themselves, not the hoped-for vanquished climate realists.
Uncouth luke; the following link is interesting; fig 4 gives the historical inflows to the MDB; nothing unusual about the current ones; fig 2 will be for sjt, in that it shows no correlation between temp and CO2; fig 3 provides the answer to the MDB’s problems, namely water allocations;
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20050323-craik.shtml
At the risk of appearing self-indulgent, this paper should be nailed to Garnaut’s pointy little head. Now, luke, how about that example of AGW?
Water allocations – good old rent seeking I suspect, and manipulating government for corporate gain.
As I used to work for the Western Lands Commission as its records clerk under Harry Kilby and Fred Spongberg during the late 1960’s, before I transferred to the NSW geol survey, I had a good knowledge of the files.
Louis; I don’t know how relevant catallactics is to the politics; you are right about it not being a scientific argument, and the consensus blight has sustained AGW from day one; this monster can only be beaten by dissention in the ranks; self-interest overcoming the incipient glory of the high moral position and herd dynamics; we are seeing some divergence in the media; time to isolate some pollies; Jensen is a smart man.
2005 Cohenite – how desperate.
Get updated boyo !
http://www.greenhouse2007.com/downloads/keynotes/071002_Mummery.pdf slides 5&6
http://www.greenhouse2007.com/downloads/keynotes/071004_Cai.pdf slide 4 Then add on lower flows since….
It’s been a long time coming – note figure 3
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs14.pdf
In any case you won’t accept that lowest period on record means anything so why pursue it. I’m sure you can find paleo droughts that are worse if you dig around. The real issues are contained in the “irrelevant papers” which document AGW related changes in circulation systems and temperatures which make it exceptional and a changed regime. And the above pdf too. Multi-year droughts are so because La Nina events are rare and neutral year don’t deliver (as the rainfall misses the continent). So no top up. No system reset.
And running the CO2 temperature correlation ruse when you have known interacting factors ain’t an argument.
Louis – “manipulating government for corporate gain” _ WHAT the market could be norty. THUMP as jaw hits the floor and bounces around.
Cohenite – You’re gonna have to put the suit on and ditch Louis to make your pitch.
“The former Environment Minister Ian Campbell has warned the Federal Opposition not to oppose the inclusion of petrol in a carbon emissions trading scheme.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/07/2296735.htm Johnnie Howard would be outraged !
SJT, It’s because of the data that the claim is being made. Read the IPCC report, it’s all there.”
Yes mate I have read the IPCC reports, ad nauseum , when I wored in the greenhouse office,and more lately due to general interest. You seem to have completely missed many important areas of the IPCC reports and the references contained within.
I’ll repeat it again for you, its the data not the models that are important here. The data and the manipulation of the data give the greatest insights into the worth of the models. Climate reconstructions are abysmal with small sample sizes and questionable handling of samples.
When all that climatologists were doing was reconstructions that looked back 1000’s of years it didn’t matter if the data qality was poor or if their results were questionable there were no great policy shifts dependent on their work. It was the general long term trends that were of interest. Now when they have moved into representing climate in tenths of a degree with the same data many people, me included, started to ask questions about the accuracy and precision of what it is that they were doing. We now have the scenario where data that was collected as rounded off degrees C have been adjusted and reintroduced in tenths of a degree. It is not quality science and in most areas of science, especially the physical sciences, the dta manipulation methods employed by climatologists would not be accepted in peer review.
Finally if you are interested int eh quality of hte models have a look at the summaries for policy makers (TAR and 4AR) and the WG1 reports and read carfully the sections wher ethey wrie about the uncertainty in the models especially surounding cloud cover. If for important areas like that our scientific knowledge is regarded as LOW then how can the IPCC assign any other value to CO2, aerosols, etc.
“interacting factors ain’t an argument”
What do you mean by that?
Luke,
The market isn’t capable of personally influencing a government minister. It’s an abstraction.
You really are surreal.
Gavin
“increased costs will only depend on the size of your footprint”
Wrong. For city populations, there are input costs for supermarket refrigeration, food transport, ATM (gotta get your money), water pumps, traffic control, hospitals’ maintenance, transport (public or private), CO2 from using computers (as we are doing here) … etc and so on. You get the picture.
If you feel the religious need to apportion “guilt”, start with (say) 5000MW pop concerts, or the V8 Bathurst motor races, or blockbuster films that play all over the eastern states for weeks, or WYD with its planes and trains (maybe), or Sydney opera extravaganzas … These may be fun for some people, but are not life-essential such as in the above list.
For Jennifer B – if you don’t understand Geology 101 (eg http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060918/20060918_16.html
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/resources/gcc/5-2-2-2.html) just ask. Paul also posted on this on April 11 this year. Silly sarcasm just sinks you into into El Luko’s dipstick hole. There is hard geological evidence, such as incontrovertible drill core data, that the eastern side of the continent has persistently experienced drought cycles for many millennia, some for over 2000 years.
AGW is not falsfiable, because it makes no testable predictions, only what-if guesses (Trenberth has acknowledged this several times). The essence of scientific method is testing predictions from an hypothesis. Any geologist who has ever drilled a borehole based on their current geological model to test that model knows the feeling of stress this induces. When the global temperatures refused to rise over the last decade, AGW simply turned to “ocean acidification” as a scarey-bear, without acknowledging the reason behind this shift.
Around 1066, Billy the Kid (aka William the Conqueror) sailed his invading fleet to an English shoreline that is now over a kilometre further east than where he found it. Only 940 years ago, sea levels were many metres higher in that region than now. Somehow, the population seemed to adapt without ETS.
“Finally if you are interested int eh quality of hte models have a look at the summaries for policy makers (TAR and 4AR) and the WG1 reports and read carfully the sections wher ethey wrie about the uncertainty in the models especially surounding cloud cover. If for important areas like that our scientific knowledge is regarded as LOW then how can the IPCC assign any other value to CO2, aerosols, etc.”
Yes, they tell exactly where they have problems, and that is why the research is ongoing. Meanwhile, we have this predicted drought. Is that enough to make you think twice?
“If for important areas like that our scientific knowledge is regarded as LOW then how can the IPCC assign any other value to CO2, aerosols, etc.”
There is a physical basis for the claims. CO2 is a GHG, it is changing the chaotic system it is a part of, it is increasing the temperature of the planet. Even Pat Michaels agrees this is true. The only real question, and wish deniers would become scpetics and start the real debate, is the extent of the warming. We don’t understand all the complex interactions of the climate, we do know that as a GHG, increasing the CO2 content is going to force the temperature higher.
Garnaut report fails the community
By Piers Akerman
July 06, 2008 12:00am
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23976700-5007146,00.html
TAXPAYERS should ask Professor Ross Garnaut for their money back: his report is little more than a fearmongering document designed to bolster the age-old socialist agenda of wealth redistribution.
“TAXPAYERS should ask Professor Ross Garnaut for their money back: his report is little more than a fearmongering document designed to bolster the age-old socialist agenda of wealth redistribution.”
So now we are going to put paranoid ravings above science? It’s a sad day indeed.
Piers Akerman – woo hoo – LOL
Ianl; great link; one of the co-authors is Pierrehumbert! What a strange world.
Um, Paul, Piers Akerman’s job is to smear Labor (along with Aboriginals, muslims, unemployed folk, greens, gays…)in every column he writes. What took you so long to milk this font of wisdom?
The big test for Mr Krudd will now be how far he wants to Whitlamise our economy. I have grave fears.
On Monday, the Indian PM unveiled India’s national plan on climate change.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, outlined eight key elements of the National Plan on Climate Change, while releasing the document on 30 June 2008.
There is very little that is new in this document, except the attempt to integrate many long standing policy goals as part of the climate change discourse. This document reflects the attempt to be in line with the new climate fashion, yet is unable to ignore the economic and political reality of low access to energy that afflicts most Indians.
Even while identifying some of the observed changes in climatic behaviour, such as a 0.4C increase in surface temperature over the past century, or about 1 mm per year sea level rise in Northern Indian Ocean, or wider variation in rainfall patterns, the document notes that no firm link between the documented changes and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.
India, the Prime Minister said, was ready to play its role as a responsible member of the international community and to make its own contribution. He added that India believed that every citizen of this planet should have an equal share of the planetary atmospheric space and therefore, long-term convergence of per capita GHG emissions was the only equitable basis for a global agreement to tackle climate change.
In this context, the Prime Minister reaffirmed India’s pledge that as it pursued sustainable development, its per capita GHC emissions would not exceed the per capita GHG emissions of developed countries, despite our developmental imperatives.
Noting the low per capita emission of GHG in India, compared to other major economies, the document firmly rejects any suggestion for a national emission cap.
The document is just one of many repeated buckets of cold water from nations with more commonsense the delusional AGW armchair alarmists who inhabit comfortable little nations like Australia can expect over the next few years as the Rudd government considers whether it will sacrifice the Australian economy on the altar of post modernist political correctness which is AGW catastrophism.
Last night on the ABC, Ross Garnaut ended the debate with Michael Costa, declaring the science is settled with this benighted remark:
“”The NSW Treasurer is a well-known denier of the science (of climate change),” he said.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23985632-5017586,00.html
With an appeal to bigotry, Ross Garnaut has signaled he’s no man of science, but a brutish zealot, who like Clive Hamilton, is contributing to the evolution of Orwellian psycholinguistics designed to assault dissent rather than muddle with appeals to reason and democratic process.
The opaque and authoritarian approach of AGW sectarians such as Clive and Ross would be simply pathetic, but blind pathos is not impotent when focused from positions of power. These anti-humanist demagogues threaten to undo our civil liberties in the name of their morbid zealotry.
They have already seized control of the language in order to terminate reasonable due diligence.
The AGW zealots label reasonable opposition to their faith Denialism (as in holocaust denialists). To reference your opposition in a democracy to Nazis is the lowest form of contempt and an appeal to the most bigoted intolerance in human nature.
Now that powerful leaders like Ross Garnaut are defaming their political opponents with bigoted references to Nazism. It must be condemned as the latest fashion in hate speech.
The CSIRO is purged of unclean research with a silent campaign of fear for one’s career. Imagine the consequences of having the Big Man quietly memo your research as “Denialism.”
They have seized the semantics of climate. The fact that climate is always changing is twisted into a crime against humanity committed by their Nazi-like Denialist political opposition.
They have seized carbon, the ring of all life, turned it into a foul pollution invented by Denialist industry and destined to kill Gaia unless we act now to purge greed from civilization.
Now that they own the language, they plan to seize control of every aspect of energy usage of an entire nation.
Science usurped by the authoritarian powers of the state and purged of Denialist dissent, is now ready to save you from your autonomy and liberate the weather from oppression.
Garnaut and the Rudd government hide behind a façade of science, but they hate nothing more than the bright light of methodic reason. They are the pathetic benighted face of anti-reason. Welcome to the new Dark Age.
Stop Climate Change Now! Or die.
Steve Short,
The contrast between the reasonable and democratic due diligence approach on the sub-continent and the holier-than-thou pseudo-science of apocalypse prophecy at home is a disgrace.
Oh piss off Wes – how utterly precious – after what sceptics have called AGW scientists. Mate – do bung it on ! Denialists need to go wash their mouths out and have a look in the mirror. Your entire rant above is just so much fantastic fabricated horseshit. What waffle and drivel. Off you toddle and turn on the talk back radio for a dose of more venom.
Stop whining and argue back properly ! If it is so obvious why are you losing the debate?
Why is the Federal Opposition half on side.
The sceptic look is rabid and redneck. Get a haircut and a manicure.
luke; I looked at your july slide-show from CSIRO/BoM called Drought Exceptional Circumstances; a glib response would be to say p 2 sums it up, and I’m afraid to say the more I read the more this conclusion is appropriate; the paper lists 4 definitions of drought on p3; the meteorological definition is the only relevant one to the AGW debate; the other 3 definitions are to do with human responses and value judgements to the drought; these other 3 do not contribute to the onset, regularity or severity of meteorological droughts; they will, however, aggravate the utility of the land; water usage is the primary example of this and demonstrates the lacuna of the AGW perception between a natural condition and a manmade worsening of the effects of that natural condition in terms of human values and expectations; for instance, exhausting water in the upper MDB will have impacts on other drought parameters but will not impact on the advent or form of meteorological droughts; the whole tenor of the paper loosely connecting meteorological droughts with GHG’s is filtered through the anthropological definitions of drought to establish a causal connection; there is simply no justification for this.
On p 4 the graph of exceptional events shows no pattern consistent with a sustained GHG effect.
Fig 2A on p 5 really sums up the defects of the paper; it purports to show av mean temp anomalies, with a base period of 1961-1990 as determined by an 11 year moving average; I have noted before that moving av’s are highly misleading because they can disquise actual trends which are the opposite of the weight of the average; the graph has all the defects of base periods which ignore monumental events which occur during that base; in this case the well-explained and unrebutted Great Pacific Climate Shift, which occurred in 1976 as described by John McLean and Thomas Quirk and Joe D’aleo; the graph clearly shows the step-up in temp which ocurred in the late 70’s due to the GPCS; this accentuates downwards prior temps and increases upward trends for post-temps; the base period also ignores the climate shift from -ve to +ve PDO which occured in the 70’s and which would have the same effect as the GPCS. Now, running means worsen this effect because they cannot compensate for the base period distortion; they can only build on it; McLean and Quirk’s paper explains this in an irrefutable way but we still get official garbage like this which will not accept that its manipulation of data is tainted; now they have exacerbated that by throwing in moving averages as well, compounding the error. The McLean paper is here; how about a response, or are you going to stay in that paddock waiting to be muesled?
http://mclean.ch/climate/Aust_temps_alt_view.pdf
Actually, Luke, in any great clash of ideas taking control of the language involved to characterize the existential situation is as fundamental to defining the debate as the content itself.
That’s why you had to call yourself “The Creep.” Unlike your mate the “Denialist Scum” there is no universal offensive slur to stereotype AGW partisans.
You could have called yourself a “Useful Idiot” just as well or a “jerk” or “whanker” or any other ad hoc insult you fancied.
Notice how the AGW partisans have taken control of the language. An effective term of contempt has been adopted for the vast range perspectives that are sceptical of the AGW hypothesis. They are all neatly stereotyped as a single monolithic sinister group: The Denialists.
It a technique of oppression and it works well. You use it in almost every post to dodge rational dialog and to degrade the quality of dialog that goes on around you.
Why haven’t “the denialists” coined a similarly offensive slur to universally denote the AGW partisans?
Because unlike the exclusive tribe of AGW partisans, where all subscribe to a rather pithy dogma, the sceptics are “the others”, the outsiders, anyone who doesn’t subscribe to one or more of the basic handful of AGW tenets—and then ask inconvenient, incorrect questions.
The sceptics do not function as a Comintern, because they are diverse in their opinions. That’s the Orwellian beauty of pigeonholing anyone who raises his voice against AGW as a denialist. The sceptical voices come from a thousand perspectives and dozens of disciplines, yet are labeled as a single mob.
But the real reason to wield hate speech to characterize those who question your orthodoxy is to avoid rational dialog, methodological scrutiny and ultimately to short-circuit the democratic due process.
Wes,if you are supporting Michael Costa’s views,then Luke is right- you guys really do need to lift your game! Boy howdy, first the prophet Piers and next the guru Costa. And you are concerned about what Luke calls himself? LOL!
Great Pacific Climate Shit – what dross – not in the known literature – a cherry picked scam based on selective ranting from a few papers. Flim flam.
Well Wes – you see I took a course from Mott, Rog, Louis, Tilo and a host of others – given the torrent of abuse – I think denialist is pretty mild – if we were at the pub it would be worse.
How come you never protest when your colleagues here lay it on. Tad selective? Glass jaw? Croc tears?
Garnaut and Costa are big boys. They’re just engaging in a bit of rhetorical biffo.
I make a rule to use two uses of denialist for every utterance of watermelon – dig it?
Adapted from a story by Ross Garnaut, musical score: Peter Garrett, staging: Penny Wong and directed by Kevin Rudd, the latest blockbuster movie musical “The Book of Revelations II” starring the aforesaid as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalpse who, seizing the reins of power and prophesying doom, do their darndest to create it.
“Incredible” … David Stratton
“Something for Everyone” Margaret Pomeranz
Gee, it’s really getting hot in here – Tailight is close to the exploding stage. Rational discourse seems to be having an effect.
Garnaut: “The NSW Treasurer is a well-known denier of the science (of climate change)”.
It seems to me that Garnaut is a well-known solar denier.
There is a fundamental difference between Mott or Louis calling Luke an “idiot” or a “creep” or whatever ad hoc insult slings into mind at the moment and the systematic stereotyping of anyone who questions the AGW paradigm as part of a sinister plot referenced to Nazism.
The purpose of pinning a yellow star, so to speak, on all who challenge a political orthodoxy is to coercively isolate and silence dissent.
It’s beyond a rhetorical devise, it’s an oppressive political tool used historically by authoritarians to intimidate and threaten.
Imagine the chilling factor at the CSIRO or the BOM, where having your research, or even informal personal opinion, associated with the magic bullet “denialism” means the end of your career. Nothing needs to be said. The silence is deafening.
I can call Luke a stupid pickle and the democratic process is not damaged nor is bigotry introduced into the fray. But when Garnaut calls a politician or a CSIRO staffer a denialist rather than a sceptic, or dissenter, or alternative or unconventional, or minority, then the whole democratic process is degraded and we have taken our first step towards a state of fear. Bigotry has been introduced an acceptable part of the political discourse.
Ironically, the first victim is the science behind AGW, because with the debate over, and the science settled, we are entering a new psychohistorical landscape where the research must now only support the political orthodoxy.
As a nation we have never been here before.
Dear Luke and others
Now that Professor Garnaut has made some preliminary estimates of one Australian response to AGW may I suggest that you use a little more scientific argument and less abuse when dealing with your detractors. Because “saving the world” at last involves a bit more than buying a Tshirt, changing light bulbs and riding to walk. People’s welfare and livelihoods in Australia will be negatively affected by the adoption of emission trading schemes; we are not dealing anymore with unknown welfare consequences of domestic efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Garnaut has laid out some of the likely costs (with more to follow).
I am still intrigued as to how the climate modellers can forecast the effects of increased CO2 levels on temperature and subsequent weather and other experts can predict ecological, medical, etc effects but as far as I can see nobody can say what causes an El Nino or La Nina events. What actually causes the switch in ocean temperature? Is there a connection between global warming and the frequency and occurrence of these events?
Perhaps you can enlighten me as I understand the El Nino or La Nina events have a profound effect on Eastern Australia’s weather.
>There is a fundamental difference between Mott or Louis calling Luke an “idiot” or a “creep” or whatever ad hoc insult slings into mind at the moment and the systematic stereotyping of anyone who questions the AGW paradigm as part of a sinister plot referenced to Nazism.
Priceless! Which side are you on Wes? Keep up boy. We can’t all be Nazis!!
luke; uncouth and wrong; there are many ‘peer-reviewed’ papers on the Great Pacific Climate Shift; it was a world wide effect; I just stick with McLean and Quirk’s paper because it refers to Australia and demonstrates the corruption of BoM temp base period methodology; anyway here is a Journal of Climate paper from 2005;
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ResearchProjects/Hartmann%20and%20Wendler%202005.pdf
As far as I can see, this subject is crucial; unless AGW can repudiate the effect on temp trends and climate shift posed by this phenomenon, it may as well pretend AGW is a religion and seek to promulgate it through oppression, censorship and edict; oh.
Fortunately AP6 (now AP7) is still quietly chugging along.
http://www.asiapacificpartnership.org/REDGTFProjects.htm#REDGTF%20Project%2037
Unfortunately AP7 has disadvantages
– It was started by John Howard.
– It is not a vehicle for transforming the Australian economy.
– There is limited scope for grand gestures and sweeping headlines.
– There are limited opportunities to Hoover up vast quantities of taxpayers cash.
– It might actually reduce emissions, thus limiting the opportunity for further regulation and taxation.
Fortunately AP6 (now AP7) is still quietly chugging along.
http://www.asiapacificpartnership.org/REDGTFProjects.htm#REDGTF%20Project%2037
Unfortunately AP7 has disadvantages
– It was started by John Howard.
– It is not a vehicle for transforming the Australian economy.
– There is limited scope for grand gestures and sweeping headlines.
– There are limited opportunities to Hoover up vast quantities of taxpayers cash.
– It might actually reduce emissions, thus limiting the opportunity for further regulation and taxation.
“Now that Professor Garnaut has made some preliminary estimates of one Australian response to AGW may I suggest that you use a little more scientific argument and less abuse when dealing with your detractors. Because “saving the world” at last involves a bit more than buying a Tshirt, changing light bulbs and riding to walk. People’s welfare and livelihoods in Australia will be negatively affected by the adoption of emission trading schemes..”
Good point. Don’t think it passed unnoticed. Thanks for that, Blair.
Blair,
There is an explanation for the El Nino etc on Bruce Leybourne’s web site.
http://www.geostreamconsulting.com/papers/Leybourne_Oceans_Fin.pdf
It’s a bit controversial but the connection seems to be linked with the earth’s magnetosphere that is modulated by the sun.
http://www.holoscience.com is physicist Wal Thornhill’s web site and he discusses the electrical aspects of weather and climate from the electric plasma perspective.
It’s all pretty straight forward.
No Cohenite uncouth and wrong – type “Great Pacific Climate Shift” in Google Scholar and be very disappointed in the number (zero?) of peer reviewed publications. The “Great” implies something other than a PDO change. Unimpressed. The rest of your comment was irrelevant filler.
“It’s a bit controversial but the connection seems to be linked with the earth’s magnetosphere that is modulated by the sun.”
As I mentioned in my post we will be soon experiencing the effects of measures taken to curb the effects of climate change. And you tell me,and I have a lot of respect for your consistency in arguing your case for AGW that “It’s a bit controversial but the connection seems to be linked with the earth’s magnetosphere that is modulated by the sun.”
Is this connected to carbon emissions?
When I was doing my degree at the U of Q many years ago we always told to be wary of measurement without theory. Has that changed?
Regards
Blair
Sorry Luke
I muddled up the Louis and Luke
Blair
Blair – to your first question on origin of El Nino etc. There are a number of theories – westerly wind bursts seem to start the process off, but it may be that it is just an inherent property of the ocean system – some sort of inherent oscillator. i.e. no beginning nor end
Whether AGW will lead to greater frequency of El Nino events is not clear (IPCC). Some have suggested that the Pacific will tend to a warmer “El Nino-like” mean state. But is this an El Nino.
El Nino events have occurred in clusters over time geological time.
However Smith and Power (reported this blog) have documented a decrease in the Walker circulation.
Weakening of the Walker Circulation and apparent dominance of El
Nino both reach record levels, but has ENSO really changed?
Scott B. Power 1 and Ian N. Smith 2
Received 21 May 2007; revised 30 July 2007; accepted 10 August 2007; published 20 September 2007.
[1] Changes in El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and
the Walker Circulation can be routinely monitored using the
Southern Oscillation Index (SOI). Here we show that the
lowest 30-year average value of the June–December SOI
just occurred (i.e. in 1977–2006), and that this coincided
with the highest recorded value in mean sea-level pressure
at Darwin, the weakest equatorial surface wind-stresses and
the highest tropical sea-surface temperatures on record. We
also document what appears to be a concurrent period of
unprecedented El Nino dominance. However, our results,
together with results from climate models forced with
increasing greenhouse gas levels, suggest that the recent
apparent dominance might instead reflect a shift to a lower
mean SOI value. It seems that global warming now needs to
be taken into account in both the formulation of ENSO
indices and in the evaluation and exploitation of statistical
links between ENSO and climate variability over the globe.
This could very well lead to the development of more accurate
seasonal-to-interannual climate forecasts. Citation: Power,
S. B., and I. N. Smith (2007), Weakening of the Walker Circulation
and apparent dominance of El Nino both reach record levels, but
has ENSO really changed?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L18702,
doi:10.1029/2007GL030854.
Thanks Luke but “However, our results,
together with results from climate models forced with
increasing greenhouse gas levels, suggest that the recent
apparent dominance might instead reflect a shift to a lower
mean SOI value.”
Fair enough but where is the theory?
Not sure what you mean Blair. There are text books and hundreds of papers about El Nino theory and behaviour. The paper is subtle though….
However, if global warming is largely responsible
for the observed decline in the average value of the SOI
over the period 1977–2006 then the threshold values used
to define ENSO events need to be lowered (by approximately
3 SOI units). Under the new thresholds the apparent
dominance of El Nin˜o disappears. This simple interpretation
gives a result that is consistent with modelling results:
global warming weakens the Walker Circulation and warms
the tropical Pacific Ocean, but has little impact on tropical
ENSO-driven variability about the new mean-state [Meehl
et al., 2007]. While plausible, further research is needed to
help quantify the extent to which global warming has in fact
driven the unprecedented recent decline in the 30-year
average value of the SOI.
Thanks Luke. I just what an answer to this question;”as far as I can see nobody can say what causes an El Nino or La Nina event. What actually causes the switch in ocean temperature?”
Blair
Well Blair – look no further than “causes” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation – has a summary of major causes theory. It seems to be an inherent property of the system that can produce the phenomena through a series of positive feedbacks.
Sorry Luke
“There are a number of theories – westerly wind bursts seem to start the process off, but it may be that it is just an inherent property of the ocean system – some sort of inherent oscillator. i.e. no beginning nor end
Whether AGW will lead to greater frequency of El Nino events is not clear (IPCC). Some have suggested that the Pacific will tend to a warmer “El Nino-like” mean state. But is this an El Nino.”
I guess my inarticulate point is this; “if one does not have an accepted theory of what starts the process off” how can one start predicting more frequent and more severe El Nino effects with calamitous results for Eastern Australian agriculture, environment etc? There are almost daily predictions from CSIRO, Climate Institutes about more and increasing droughts etc. I am just wondering about the theoretical basis for their predictions given the influence of El Nino/El Nina on our climate.
see if these help
http://ncas-climate.nerc.ac.uk/~ericg/publications/Guilyardi_etal_JC04.pdf
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/19/1/pdf/i1520-0442-19-1-69.pdf
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/16/8/pdf/i1520-0442-16-8-1141.pdf
Thanks Luke
Given the state of modelling as shown in those articles it makes one a little unsure of the accuracy of the predictions of the effects of AGW on the east coast of Australia.