WASHINGTON, DC – After deliberations into the best responses to global warming, an Expert Panel of five top economists including three Nobel Laureates concluded that greater resources should be spent on research into climate engineering and green energy.
The Expert Panel’s findings highlight the problems with the current political focus on carbon taxes, and underscore the vast promise shown by alternative responses to global warming.
The Expert Panel scrutinized 21 ground-breaking research papers by top climate economists that analyzed the costs and benefits of different responses to global warming, ranging from a focus on black carbon mitigation to climate engineering and varying levels of carbon taxes. Based on an analysis of the new research, they created a prioritized list (overleaf) that outlines the best and worst ways to respond to climate change.
The Expert Panel concluded that the most effective use of resources would be to invest immediately in researching marine cloud whitening technology (where boats spray seawater droplets into clouds above the sea to make them reflect more sunlight back into space, reducing warming).
Climate engineering could provide a cheap, effective and rapid response to global warming. Remarkably, research considered by the Expert Panel, written by lead author Dr Eric Bickel, suggests that a total of about $9 billion spent developing marine cloud whitening technology might be able to cancel out this entire century’s global warming.
Expert Panel member and Nobel Laureate economist Thomas Schelling said, “We found that climate engineering has great promise. Even if one approaches it from a skeptical viewpoint, it is important to invest in research to identify the limitations and risks of this technology sooner rather than later.”
The Expert Panel found that there is a compelling case for greater research and development into developing green energy technology. They considered a paper by economists Professor Chris Green and Isabel Galiana of McGill University showing that non-fossil energy sources will – based on today’s availability—get us less than halfway toward a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. There is a need for a technology revolution, which has not yet even started.
The Expert Panel found that high carbon taxes would be an expensive, ineffective way to reduce the suffering from global warming.
Research from Professor Richard SJ Tol showed that a high, global CO2 tax starting at $68 would reduce world GDP by a staggering 12.9% in 2100—the equivalent of $40 trillion a year – many times the expected damage of global warming.
“I hope that the Copenhagen Consensus on Climate will contribute to discussion about global warming policy by helping highlight some of the best policy responses to global warming,” said Finn Kydland, Nobel Laureate in Economics “It is important to look at the most effective ways to address the climate challenge.”
The Copenhagen Consensus on Climate was convened by the think-tank Copenhagen Consensus Center, whose director is Bjorn Lomborg.
“I think it’s greatly encouraging that the Expert Panel has identified so many promising responses to global warming, and I hope that their findings are seriously considered by policy-makers. Their work also makes it clear that current carbon taxes and cap-and-trade policies are very poor answers to global warming. We need to re-think our priorities to best respond to this challenge,” Bjorn Lomborg said.
**********
This is a media release from Bjorn Lomborg. More information at ww.fixtheclimate.com
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Folly on top of hubris on top of group think generally comes up with ideas that look just like this.
I can just imagine the unintended consequences of meddling with global climate.
Ice age, anyone?
Lomborg is wrong on everything.
his “expert panel” is NOT made up of expert climate scientists or expert engineers, but of “economists”. having economists decide how to geoengineer our planet sounds like one of the most stupid ideas ever!
even IF spraying sea water into the air would help to cool the planet (cool it baby, cool it…), it would do nothing to stop ocean acidification.
Hunter, Mike Goad and Sod:
I write to point out that you are missing (ignoring ?) the only important issue concerning the unfounded scare concerning anthropognic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW): viz.
Politicians have to be seen to be doing something in response to the global warming scare.
Doing nothing is not an option for them because they have said they agree the scare exists so they must do something or lose votes. And admitting they were wrong to have agreed the scare is not an option for them because admitting they were wrong would lose votes.
The things politicians are doing are expensive and harmful; ETS, Cap&Trade, distorted energy policies, subsidising windfarms, etc. Any country that could abandon these expensive activities would gain economic advantage over other countries that are adopting them.
Therefore, politicians would abandon several of these activities if they had a method to be seen to be doing something in response to the scare while, in reality, they were doing nothing.
Climate realists need to give the politicians a ‘way out’. We need to suggest a way to enable the politicians to reverse their intentions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without causing them to lose face with resulting loss of votes: Politicians will not make policy changes that would cost them votes.
I have repeatedly provided such a suggestion over the years. The suggested policy is
(a) to research geo-engineering to rapidly reverse global warming if and when mean annual global temperature reaches 2 degC higher (politicians see that value as a threat but it it will not be reached)
but
(b) to do nothing until then
except
(c) to proclaim the research and
(d) to continue talking (n.b. not deciding) how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
This policy would allow the scare to fade away as the ‘acid rain’ scare did.
I argued this case on the JunkScience.com forum at
http://forum.junkscience.com/index.php?topic=401.0
And JunkScience.com changed their policy on geo-engineering as a
result of my arguments.
And my case was posted on WUWT at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/17/stopping-climate-change/
but few read my suggestion and understood it (ho hum).
Richard
Richard, you are completely wrong on acid rain. the problem is sort of under control in the west, because governments decided to act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
the problem of AGW is real. politicians and lobby groups already managed to delay action by at least 20 years, and it is rather obvious that any real action is at least 10 years in the future.
in short your idea is junk science and WuWt is a really good dumping place for it…
oh and while you are at it, why not explain to us, how spraying water in the air will stop the acidification of the oceans?
your attempt to mislead the public should at least be based on facts, or rather not?
“AGW is real”
Sod you are totally delusional. UAH monthly anomaly now 0.231degC after 30 years – that is not significant. It is just useless noise, like you.
and you continue with the “acidification” nonsense – as if the oceans would “acidify” – the Ph may change slightly, or it may not. It may become less base, or possibly not. There is no science behind the hysterical “acidification” scare.
By the way, Sod, are you ever going to provide a rational response to my questions:
1. Over the last 30 years average global temperatures have increased not at all or marginally, by a few tenths of a degree. Antarctica ice is at its maximum extent since satellite monitoring began, and the Arctic has gained as much as it has lost. What evidence is there that this is not just noise, or natural climate variation?
2. If the hysteria that average global (or ocean) temperatures are being driven ever upward by increasing anthropogenic emissions of CO2 is “science”, what falsifiability tests has this passed?
3. With atmospheric CO2 increasing, and average global and ocean temperatures static or falling, and there does not appear to be even a correlation much less a causation between them. What irrefutable scientific evidence exists that CO2 is a temperature forcer?
4. If the climate is changing because of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 over the last 100 years, which presumably is swamping any natural variation, then I assume that climate would look very different if these emissions were not in the atmosphere. What would the climate look like, and how would I know?
5. If climate models predicting Armageddon as a result of anthropogenic emissions of “greenhouse gases” are relying on positive feedback mechanisms to make CO2 look like a significant climate forcer, what evidence is there that these positive feedback mechanisms actually exist? What successful predictions have been made by climate models that would indicate their reliability?
6. During the Ordovician period, atmospheric CO2 levels were up to 11 times the current value, yet during this period the Earth was in an ice age. If CO2 is a significant and dominant forcer of temperatures, why?
In a *geological* sense, we’re living in an interglacial phase of an Ice Age that goes back several million years. In the long term, the real danger is the next major advance of continental glaciers. In that context, geo-engineering research is worth pursuing.
Trivial example: a global network of strategically-placed coal incineration facilities that would spread soot on top of fresh Summer snow downwind from them. This would decrease the Earth’s albedo a bit, would partially mitigate the disastrous effects of the next Big Freeze, and would allow more people to survive until the next interglacial comes to the rescue.
Sod:
I never (n.b. not ever) “attempt to mislead the public”.
I offer you the following facts in hope that you will ponder on them.
Firstly, the Earth is constrained within close limits of global temperature in each of two stable states; viz. glacial and interglacial. And its temperature has been the same within narrow bounds in each of those stable states throughout the ~2.5 billion years since the Earth gained an oxygen-rich atmosphere. But heating from the Sun has increased by about 30% over that time. If that additional radiative forcing from the Sun had a direct effect on temperature then the oceans would have boiled to steam long ago.
Clearly, the climate system contains very strong constraints that keep global temperature within close boundaries in each of the two stable states.
But the global temperature constantly varies within the boundaries of its stable state. Its present state is the interglacial state and has been for ten millenia. At issue is why it varies within the boundaries.
The climate system is seeking an equilibrium that it never achieves. The Earth obtains radiant energy from the Sun and radiates that energy back to space. The energy input to the system (from the Sun) may be constant (although some doubt that), but the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun ensure that the energy input/output is never in perfect equilbrium.
The climate system is an intermediary in the process of returning (most of) the energy to space (some energy is radiated from the Earth’s surface back to space). And the Northern and Southern hemispheres have different coverage by oceans. Therefore, as the year progresses the modulation of the energy input/output of the system varies. Hence, the system is always seeking equilibrium but never achieves it.
Such a varying system could be expected to exhibit oscillatory behaviour. And it does. Mean global temperature (n.b. global and not hemispheric temperature) rises by 3.8 degC from January to July and falls by 3.8 degC from July to January each year.
(Incidentally, I wonder why some people think a rise of global temperature of 2 degC would be catastrophic when global temperature rises by nearly double that during each year).
Such oscillations could induce harmonic effects which have periodicity of several years. Indeed, it would be surprising if such harmonic effects did not occur. Of course, such harmonic oscillation would be a process that – at least in principle – is capable of evaluation. And assessment of that process may indicate frequencies of observed oscillations (i.e. NAO, PDO, etc.).
It is interesting to note that there is an apparent oscillation with a frequency of ~60 years because mean global temperature is estimated to have cooled from ~1880 to ~1910, then warmed to ~1940, then cooled to ~1970, then warmed to 1998, and has cooled since then. It is tempting to speculate that this ocillation is a harmonic effect.
However, there may be no process because the climate is a chaotic system. Therefore, the observed oscillations (i.e. NAO, PDO, etc. and the 60 year oscillation) could be observation of the system seeking its chaotic attractor(s) in response to its seeking equilibrium in a changing situation.
Very importantly, there is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP). All the observed rise of global temperature in the twentieth century could be recovery from the LIA that is similar to the recovery from the DARC to the MWP. And the ~900 year oscillation could be the chaotic climate system seeking its attractor(s). If so, then all global climate models and ‘attribution studies’ utilized by IPCC and CCSP are based on the false premise that there is a force or process causing climate to change when no such force or process exists.
Furthermore, harmonic oscillation and chaotic attractor seeking may both occur.
It is interesting to consider why some people wantto believe in man-made global warming when there is no evidence of any kind for it and much evidence denies it: see
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AGW_hypothesis_disproved.pdf
Richard
Richard,
In addition the meteorological observations made during the Choson Dynasty supports the view that there is not steady forcing to the Earth’s Climate.
Actually looking back geologically, nothing seems to have been repeated – it seems the present can’t explain the past, and the past can’t predict the future either, except in the most trivial of ways.
As for AGW, we are dealing with a mass delusion that has developed a life of its own and the politicians are indeed between a rock and a hard place.
But we must also be wary of political opportunists who will make use of the present situation. There are eerie parallels to what occurred in Europe last century.
Oil Dill says
“During the Ordovician period, atmospheric CO2 levels were up to 11 times the current value, yet during this period the Earth was in an ice age. If CO2 is a significant and dominant forcer of temperatures, why?”
OK Oil Dill tell us the configuration of continents and ocean – what atmospheric circulations resulted, and o’ do tell what the solar output was ! CO2 doesn’t work without solar output which dimwits like you don’t seem to understand.
“Arctic has gained as much as it has lost.” bullshit !
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
” If climate models predicting Armageddon” – stop verballing – the usual denialist filth try-on
“(Incidentally, I wonder why some people think a rise of global temperature of 2 degC would be catastrophic when global temperature rises by nearly double that during each year).”
for heavens sake – do we need to tell you that?
Sinkers does his best to keep up the denialist filth rumours of reds under the bed. Pathetic.
What denialist geologists forget to mention: from 253 @ http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=6&t=290&&n=63
“there is a huge body of evidence that the climate was intimately sensitive to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations throughout the long history of the earth.
The effect of the progressively increasing solar constant is that greenhouse gas (largely CO2 since the end of the Archaean) thresholds for various broad climate states (hot/warm – cool/cold) shift through deep time. However the climate remains highly sensitive to greenouse gas levels (obviously so, since greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases!).
So analysis of CO2 levels from paleoproxies and comparison with paleotemperatures and evidence for glaciations, demonstrates a rather close connection with atmospheric CO2 levels during many hundreds of million years. The decreasing levels of atmospheric CO2 through the late Eocene are linked with the onset of first Antarctic glaciation and in the late Pliocene with the onset of Greenland glaciation [*]. However the threshold for these glaciations (around 500 ppm of atmospheric CO2) are much lower than the thresholds for glaciation in the deep past, where, for example, the very much weaker solar output during the Ordovician meant that drops of CO2 levels below around 2000-3000 were sufficient to instigate significant widespread cold and localized glaciation [**].
There is a vast scientific literature on CO2-climate links right through the entire Phanerozoic, a vast period of 500-odd million years where there is a reasonable coverage of paleotemperature and paleo-CO3 proxies. The data frm more than 100 studies has been summarized in a detailed review published in 2006 [**]. Since that time a large number of additional evidence for close CO2-earth temperature links has been published [***].
So the earth’s climate has been very sensitive to atmospheric CO2 levels for many 100’s of millions (if not 1000’s of millions) of years. When atmospheric CO2 levels drop below thresholds, the levels of which are modulated by the solar output, cold/glacial periods result. Likewise when atmospheric CO2 levels rise (e.g. following major tectonic events, or possibly during the long slow grinding of the Indian subcontinent towards and into South Asia through the early and middle Eocene, with the release of massive amounts of CO2 from carbonate sediments), the earth is warm/hot.
[*] D.L. Royer (2006) “CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic” Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 70, 5665-5675.
[ ***] More recent studies supplement the information in Royers compilation and cover additional periods with new data sets right through the past several hundreds of millions of years:
[**] D. J. Lunt et al. (2008) Late Pliocene Greenland glaciation controlled by a decline in atmospheric CO2 levels Nature 454, 1102-1105
R.E. Carne, J.M. Eiler, J. Veizer et al (2007) “Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era” Nature 449, 198-202
W. M. Kurschner et al (2008) “The impact of Miocene atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuations on climate and the evolution of the terrestrial ecosystem” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 499-453.
D. L. Royer (2008) “Linkages between CO2, climate, and evolution in deep time” Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 407-408
Zachos JC (2008) “An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics” Nature 451, 279-283.
Doney SC et al (2007) “Carbon and climate system coupling on timescales from the Precambrian to the Anthropocene” Ann. Rev. Environ. Resources 32, 31-66.
Horton DE et al (2007) “Orbital and CO2 forcing of late Paleozoic continental ice sheets” Geophys. Res. Lett. L19708
B. J. Fletcher et al. (2008) “Atmospheric carbon dioxide linked with Mesozoic and early Cenozoic climate change” Nature Geoscience 1, 43-48.
[****] Kent DV, Muttoni G “Equatorial convergence of India and early Cenozoic climate trends” (2008) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 16065-16070.
Bohaty SM et al. (2009) “Coupled greenhouse warming and deep-sea acidification in the middle Eocene”, Paleooceanography 24, art # PA2207.
Robert M. DeConto et al (2008) “Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation” Nature 455, 652-656″
Sod you are totally delusional. UAH monthly anomaly now 0.231degC after 30 years – that is not significant. It is just useless noise, like you.
you can t get a single fact right, can you?
UAH anomaly for July was 0.41.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah
and you continue with the “acidification” nonsense – as if the oceans would “acidify” – the Ph may change slightly, or it may not. It may become less base, or possibly not. There is no science behind the hysterical “acidification” scare.
this is simply false. the atmospheric pressure of CO2 directly corresponds to an increase of CO2 in the ocean, which directly translates into acidification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law
you know absolutely nothing about chemistry, do you?
1. Over the last 30 years average global temperatures have increased not at all or marginally, by a few tenths of a degree. Antarctica ice is at its maximum extent since satellite monitoring began, and the Arctic has gained as much as it has lost. What evidence is there that this is not just noise, or natural climate variation?
the TREND of “a few tenths of a degree” is not marginal.
I never (n.b. not ever) “attempt to mislead the public”.
this is a false claim.
you said: “to continue talking (n.b. not deciding) how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”
The trouble with cloud whitening is the work will only last until it rains. That is an awful lot of effort for short term result. It would be much smarter to take an existing human activity and relocate it to a place that will maximise results. At present the areas of ocean known as the doldrums have very low cloud cover and minimal wind. They are the places where sailing ships used to, and still can be, becalmed for weeks on end. These areas absorb close to the maximum 97% of insolation and are the main drivers of ocean warming.
Human cities are usually built on land which generally has higher albedo than ocean and the competition for land in cities has raised the price of this land much higher than the cost of secure flotation devices. Urban land in Brisbane is about $240,000 for a 600m2 block which, after deducting services etc works out at a raw price of $180,000/600m2 or $300/m2. About 300m2 of roof and pavement area will then be placed on top of this.
Roof and paint treatments are available that can reflect more than 95% of insolation, so the shifting of a basic behaviour pattern, for even a small portion of the population, could be done at minimal change to settlement economics but with major heat balance consequences.
A silver roof, floating over any bit of calm water near existing desert land would only need to cover a little over 35% of a 600m2 residential block of ocean to raise that blocks albedo to the planetary norm of 30%. And anyone who thinks it cannot be done should take a trip to Las Vegas, Palm Springs, Miami or any number of canal estates the world over.
Humans value waterfront living very highly. That preference can become a very useful tool in capable hands.
Luke,
That’s funny – political correct scientific literature. You don’t get it do you – it all hinges on the initial assumption Svante Arrhenius made – that increasing CO2 causes warming and decreasing CO2 causes cooling.
This is accepted without empirical proof – and then an enormous bofy of science is built on this foundatiion. I could not care two hoots how many papers you cite in support of your bellief.
You will convince me when you propduce empirical fact either confirming or falsifying Arrhenius’ hypothesis. As it stands it has been falsified by observation and measurement.
I repeat, you just don’t get it do you.
This is all very interesting. But we need to find a problem for which the measure would be that problems solution.
Look at SInkers go – when cornered in his own discipline he changes the rules.
” I could not care two hoots how many papers you cite in support of your bellief.” – yes that’s because Sinkers thinks he’s above critique. That you can just make some crap up. That’s your standard.
“As it stands it has been falsified by observation and measurement.” – no it hasn’t – it’s been confirmed ! Philipona shows you that as merely one example and I’ve told you before. But alas Louis has trouble reading.
Graeme Bird:
I completely agree with you when you say:
“This is all very interesting. But we need to find a problem for which the measure would be that problems solution.”
Indeed, if you look at my first post (above) then you will see that is what I was suggesting.
Sod adds another lie when he attempts to justify his lie that I “attempt to mislead the public”. He says it is a “false claim “that I do not mislead” anybody because I had explained how politicians could: “continue talking (n.b. not deciding) how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”
I was and am completely open in what I am suggesting and why. This is not me being misleading, and it could only be construed as such by somebody who is so delusional that he/she believes in man-made global warming.
The obfuscation of such believers is very clear here. And so is the reason for their behaviour here. They have duped politicians into adopting policies on the basis of the nonsensical idea of man-made global warming. The difficulties of negotiations prior to CoP15 in December demonstrate that politicians are seeing the problems of the adopted policies. The ‘geo-engineering optuion’ provides a way for politicians to abandon the harmful policies they have been duped into adopting. Therefore, believers in man-made global warming will do anything they can to deflect attention from consideration of the ‘geo-engineering option’.
Ian Mott does attempt to make such consideration, but I disagree with his suggestion for semi-permanent action. The advantage of sulphur seeding and/or cloud whitening is that their effect can be stopped and started almost instantly, and this minimises possibility of unforseen consequences. Remember, the purpose of the ‘geo-engineering option’ is to give politicians a realistic escape from their present policy trap. And there is little possibility that the geo-engineering would need to be used. However, nothing that could be significantly harmful should be researched because if people are so gullible that they will believe in man-made global warming then they may be stupid enough to try-out the geo-engineering.
Additionally, Luke you ask;
““(Incidentally, I wonder why some people think a rise of global temperature of 2 degC would be catastrophic when global temperature rises by nearly double that during each year).”
for heavens sake – do we need to tell you that?”
Yes! You most certainly do.
Richard
Sod adds another lie when he attempts to justify his lie that I “attempt to mislead the public”. He says it is a “false claim “that I do not mislead” anybody because I had explained how politicians could: “continue talking (n.b. not deciding) how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”
politicians who talk but don t act are misleading the public. fact.
““(Incidentally, I wonder why some people think a rise of global temperature of 2 degC would be catastrophic when global temperature rises by nearly double that during each year).”
for heavens sake – do we need to tell you that?”
Yes! You most certainly do.
pretty bizarre.
let me translate this into a situation that might be easier to understand: daily temperature fluctuates by nearly 20 °C. now your question is, would a permanent change of halve of it (10°C) make any difference?!? (yes. no more snow in winter, complete change in vegetation….)
and as denialists constantly forget this: the fluctuation will continue even with the increased temperature and will lead to massive heat spikes!
and i noticed that you decided to ignore my question: how will spraying water help with ocean acidification?
Luke,
Cornered in my own discipline? Really? I thought SJT scored top marks in non sequiturs but it seems you are catching up quickly.
Phillipona proved it? He proved Arrhenius’ postulate? If memory serves me Phillipona published something on downwelling IR, not on the experimental evidence showing that a drop in CO2 will cause ice ages, or that a rise will cause warming.
You score zero, and please do come back when you get the science right.
Sod,
These temperature fluctuations you obsess so much over – are these observed in the computer models or are they based on real physical observations.
Jennifer,
AGW is not a problem and non problems are solved by having the courage to do nothing about them, (c.f. Monckton of Brenchley).
Lukey: ” If climate models predicting Armageddon” – stop verballing – the usual denialist filth try-on”
Sorry to rain on your parade again Lukey, but don’t you read the newspapers? Here is what Raupach et al said in the Sydney Morning Herald just one month ago:
“Temperature rises of two to three degrees (or higher) carry a high risk of irreversible decay of the Greenland ice sheet from surface warming alone, leading to a sea level rise of up to about seven metres. Destabilisation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would cause a further few metres of sea-level rise.”
I assume that Raupach and the other contributing authors to this statement are prominent Australian climate top-dicks who rely on climate modelling for their info. If I recollect the IPCC prophecy correctly, the temperature rise during the 21st century due to CO2 emissions will be in the order of 1.5 – 4 degrees or thereabouts. What these climate top-dicks are therefore explicitly saying to the public is that Armageddon is ‘high risk’, ie read our lips: ‘pretty much inevitable’.
Please explain to this poor simpleton how the comment from Oil Shrill is therefore a ‘denialist filth try-on’. Try to be reasonably scientific in your answer and I promise to take your answer, if any, seriously.
Lukey: “There is a vast scientific literature on CO2-climate links right through the entire Phanerozoic, a vast period of 500-odd million years where there is a reasonable coverage of paleotemperature and paleo-CO3 proxies. The data frm more than 100 studies has been summarized in a detailed review published in 2006 [**]. Since that time a large number of additional evidence for close CO2-earth temperature links has been published [***].”
Yes, and we can be certain that these proxies were analysed by IPCC-type climate scientists intent on seeking evidence for their firmly held beliefs on CO2 sensitivity. We know what happens when climate scientists mess with proxies, why do tell, you invariably get the product the climate scientist wants to sell you. No thanks, I’ll wait for the temperature to do its thing, at least it doesn’t have an agenda to push.
“I assume that Raupach and the other contributing authors to this statement are prominent Australian climate top-dicks ” – you ASSUME do you – you verballing little creep. you ASSUME?
no reference, no context – read Dr Jen’s guidelines- this is an “evidence based” blog – not sans back of bum pers. comm.
“Yes, and we can be certain that these proxies were analysed by IPCC-type climate scientists ” – why – what’s you basis – more verballing from our resident little snake. Do we assume Plimer therefore is an IPCC type scientist or Bob Carter for working with proxies.
Get off the blog you contemptible clown.
I’ll save you the trouble of googling the reference – is here – http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/climate-change-poised-to-feed-on-itself-20090731-e4gi.html?page=-1 – the words are couched in the probabilities of the various scenarios but plain.
A moron like Dribble would not know that several of the names are internationally well known scientists not known for mad activities. Well published and conservative hitherto. And politically diverse. I would suggest they are most serious in everything they said.
Yourself and other sceptics are free to ignore them.
“……Humans value waterfront living very highly…..” Ian Mott 12:16 pm.
Very true.
The owners of this delightful bijou residence are obviously getting out before the Greenland ice sheet slides into the North Atlantic and hoping (on the ‘greater fool theory’ perhaps), that there are prospective buyers out there with a ready $22.5 M, who have never heard of Dr Raupach.
http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bin/rsearch?a=o&id=105974888&f=0&p=10&t=res&ty=&fmt=&header=&cc=&c=4366209&s=nsw&snf=rbs&tm=1252095876
Yes luke,
We read the opinion piece when it was published, from memory the attention was drawn to it by A Bolt.
Lots of assertions no facts no links. You must do better.
Ocean acidification as promulgated by sod is a red herring, or a mackeral since they do better in higher acidity;
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.3596.pdf
You know Guys and Gals,
This is all getting boringly repetative to this old Bushie form the back of Barellan.
At countless threads on this site we have the same people arguing from the same basis day after day.
Rather like 2 kids shouting at one another:
Yes it is.
No it isn’t.
YES IT IS!
NO IT ISN’T!
But having read most of the material and comments posted on this site, in relation to AGW it seems to me that we can summarise and maybe even agree as follows:
The earth has been heating since the last ice age.
It has done so in an haphazard fashion which has included both periods of warming greater than today and also a little ice age.
The reasons for these changes are complex and little understood by mankind.
Given the complexity and vast variables involved in climate, any models of future climate are useless at best and dishonest to boot.
We can be sure that temperatures near present and to several degrees above now, are far preferable to the maintenance of most species on earth (especially man), than a return to colder temperatures.
Despite Billions$ of taxpayer money being spent and countless millions of man-hours of research, there is NO supportable data to prove the hypothesis of AGW.
There is NO doubt that schemes such as Rudd’s CPRS, will and cannot make any difference to Australian climate.
So why are we not using our combined energies to stop this political nonsense?
By all means lets keep looking at the science, but do so with open and enquiring minds, not some religious fervour.
Seems easy to me; but then I’m just a Bushie from the back of Barellan.
Pikey.
luke, the Raupach scaremongering was dealt with here;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/08/climate-change-not-poised-to-feed-on-itself/
In respect of your Skeptical Science link about the CO2 effect through the paleo-climate history this is quoted;
“The effect of the progressively increasing solar constant is that greenhouse gas (largely CO2 since the end of the Archaean) thresholds for various broad climate states (hot/warm – cool/cold) shift through deep time. However the climate remains highly sensitive to greenouse gas levels (obviously so, since greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases!).”
This is fatuous because the response of the Earth to variations in insolation is not a straightforward response; as Richard says;
“If that additional radiative forcing from the Sun had a direct effect on temperature then the oceans would have boiled to steam long ago.
Clearly, the climate system contains very strong constraints that keep global temperature within close boundaries in each of the two stable states”
This is clearly and empirically indicated by the latest ERBE data;
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
On page 17 there is a diagram comparing the predictions of every GCM which show decreasing TOA OLR; ERBE data shows an increase; the extra CO2 and the extra insolation are not combining in the way described by SS; the atmospheric constraints described by Richard are also indicated by another study;
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf
Paltridgeet al find that water in form and location adjusts in the atmosphere; this is the MEP working and it confirms that the greenhouse effect on earth is already working at maximum; the increases in CO2 cannot change that.
Pikey,
The tragedy lies in the fact of the billions of dollars being spent on climate research – it’s the most horrendous example of capital consumption I’ve encountered – and to feed this bureaucratic monster, with its superannuation obligations, will require an increase in tax – hence the ETS. That will further exacerbate the economy, and the solution is to do what? Print more money?
“In 1919 a book was written that contained a brief passage about how to bring any modern society to its knees without firing a shot.
There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
His successors run the central banks, the ALP, and all of the social democratic parties, and already we are at each other’s throats over the pseudoscience of AGW.
The AGW bandwagon with it’s rentiers are in the game to pillage society for its wealth by printing more of it, and to make us part with it, aare instilling fear of climate change in us. So far it seems to have worked – judging by the pollsters.
If it succeeds it’s going make Europe during the 1930’s and 40’s seem like a teddy bears picnic in comparison.
“The science is settled”.
I suspect that in a decade this will be seen as almost as silly a comment as those scientists in 1900 who thought physics was almost a settled science.
We should not do ANY geo-engineering of our very poorly understood climate system until a vastly better understanding exists.
The consequences of getting it wrong might include the obliteration of our civilisation.
Louis
“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency”
I’m sure you are familiar with the english “gentleman” his name escapes me for the moment, who started a share market scam in France before the french revolution, that actually lead to the revolution.
He also tried to solve his problem by printing money.
From memory it was about the settlement of Louisiana, selling parcels of land.
Read about it some time ago.
“actually lead to the revolution”
I should clarify, in an indirect way only, by exacerbating the financial crises and the divide between classes.
Ocean acidification as promulgated by sod is a red herring, or a mackeral since they do better in higher acidity;
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.3596.pdf
ouch. a typical reply by a denialist.
a google scholar search with two words (seawater acidification) gives over 10000 recent papers on that topic. they basically all contradict the one paper you decided to cite.
a lot of them are detailed case studies with real experiments with real animals. being a sceptic, and constantly search for “proofs” on AGW, one would expect you would prefer those hard facts over the article you posted, which basically consists only of equations (i ll call them simple models!) and hand waving. (we need more research…)
ps: you are wrong on the mackerel as well, of course. its food will suffer from acidification, and so will the fish.
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=7&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scor-int.org%2FHigh_CO2_II%2FPresentations%2FFossa.pdf&ei=U5-jSpGfN4qKngPBvPGXAw&rct=j&q=mackerel+acidification&usg=AFQjCNFsDIV8SwcBgls26gFnYnXsw3D7eg
Sod:
Let me begin by saying where we agree. You say:
“politicians who talk but don t act are misleading the public. fact.”
Yes. I agree. And that is why I am suggesting a way that politicians can stop misleading the public with claims that humans can significantly affect global climate by altering emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity.
My suggestion is not me misleading anybody in any way. Indeed, my suggestion accepts the possibility that I may be wrong to accept the evidence which clearly shows man-made global warming is not happening and cannot happen. In the extremely unlikely case that I were wrong then my suggestion would have provided a solution for the problem if and when man-made global warming were observed to exist.
What are you afraid of? Are you afraid the public will become aware that man-made global warming is nonsense? Or is it that you fear my suggestion could be successful in stopping the harmful policies now being attempted by politicians? Or do you really believe that man-made global warming is a real threat and you want to ensure it is inflicted on the world?
You falsely – and repeatedly – accuse me of a lie, so I think it reasonable for me to demand that you come clean on what you are doing and why.
Richard
Sod,
These temperature fluctuations you obsess so much over – are these observed in the computer models or are they based on real physical observations.
the daily temperature fluctuation that i mentioned in my example above should be observable even to you…
Rather like 2 kids shouting at one another:
Yes it is.
No it isn’t.
YES IT IS!
NO IT ISN’T!
only a seriously uneducated person with very little insight into the topic could come to this conclusion. in reality, thousands of real scientists are making real progress on the subject, while a handful of dissidents is trying to stall any action.
But having read most of the material and comments posted on this site, in relation to AGW it seems to me that we can summarise and maybe even agree as follows:
The earth has been heating since the last ice age.
It has done so in an haphazard fashion which has included both periods of warming greater than today and also a little ice age.
The reasons for these changes are complex and little understood by mankind.
in short, basing your opinion on the subject of AGW on what you read on this blog is straight out of the book of most stupid things to do. the conclusion you draw, from “knowledge” found in jennifer’s posts are all completely false.
hmmmm – I wonder what going on Greenland anyway – any issues?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/04/2676391.htm
Sod:
You have cause and effect confused concerning ‘ocean acidification’. The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased because the alkalinity of the oceans has reduced slightly with resulting alteration to the solution equilibrium of carbon dioxide in the air.
The globe refuses to obey “projections” of warming those who have scare-mongered about global warming. And the scare about ‘ocean acidification’ is a fall-back position they are adopting because the globe is not obeying their “projections”
There is much, much more carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans than exists in the air. NASA estimates that there are over 38,000 Pg of carbon dissolved in the oceans and only about 760 Pg of gaseous carbon in the air. Indeed, the top 1.5 meters of the ocean alone contain more dissolved carbon dioxide than the carbon dioxide that is present in the entire atmosphere.
And the oceans ability to dissolve carbon dioxide is buffered by the solubility of calcium.
The idea that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration could acidify the oceans is plain daft.
‘Ocean acidification’ is a physical impossibility but that does not worry the scare-mongers because it is also a physical impossibility for man-made global warming to have a detectable magnitude and they managed to generate a false scare about that.
Richard
luke
“one probe recorded 2 degrees Celsius at 60 metres”
you are clutching at straws, what else would you expect? 0C maybe at 60 meters depth?
I don’t think Arctic ice around Greenland was ever that thick, but you are free to correct me with facts.
Now that I started reading your links, I realised what a load of humbug you are peddling.
Lukey: “I assume that Raupach and the other contributing authors to this statement are prominent Australian climate top-dicks ” – you ASSUME do you – you verballing little creep. you ASSUME?
no reference, no context – read Dr Jen’s guidelines- this is an “evidence based” blog – not sans back of bum pers. comm.”
Your reply to my humble and simple request is as content-free and abusive as usual. I confess I have not followed the careers of Raupach and his allegedly esteemed co-authors in minute detail, nor do I see why I should be required to do so. He appears to be representing himself as a prominent climate top-dick in a major newspaper. Are you saying that Raupach is not a climate top-dick? And that therefore this statement does not represent consensus opinion amongst Australian climate top-dicks? If so, please advise further.
“Yes, and we can be certain that these proxies were analysed by IPCC-type climate scientists ” – why – what’s you basis – more verballing from our resident little snake. Do we assume Plimer therefore is an IPCC type scientist or Bob Carter for working with proxies.”
1. Can you point to any comment I have made assuming or requiring you to assume the climactic efficacy of either Plimer or Bob Carter?
2. My basis for my assuming that paleographic temperature proxies were analysed by IPCC-type climate scientists is a general one which may of course be incorrect. If I am lumping these particular paleographic proxy munchers in with those that have already been exposed as frauds, so be it. My general point is that, given the frauds already exposed in the current era of IPCC dominated, agenda driven climate science, these sorts of studies need to be demonstrated to be highly rigorous and as bulletproof as possible for any skeptic to take them seriously. Unfortunately, as far as skeptics are concerned, the credibility of climate science went out the window and straight down the drain after the hockey stick affair and the continuing demonstrations of fraud and malpractice from its allegedly scientific promoters. Thus, unfortunately, all climate related proxy analysers and their ilk are tarred with the same brush until proven otherwise.
Normally these sorts of things do not matter that much in science. If the results are dubious then eventually these sorts of things are (usually) sorted out with the passage of time. However in the current situation this is not possible given the hysteria of those climate scientists/political advocates who are demanding instant action otherwise ‘we are all gonna die’. The slow and langorous process of winnowing out the chaff and other forms of shit in a normally obscure, irrelevant and complex subject like climate science is therefore short-circuited. We are expected by the scientific advocates to accept their work as truth on the spot on trust without argument. Indeed we are branded as lunatics and denialist scum for even questioning their word or, heavens above, their hard-won (chortle) integrity.
The Skeptics have a fairly reasonable and understandable attitude to such issues, implanted in the saying: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’. In this case the notion of anthropogenic global warming due to greenhouse gases is not extraordinary. However what is extraordinary is the massively expensive and world changing consequences that flow from this claim. Therefore, in order to be taken seriously at least by me, whom I freely admit to being an irrelevant member of the public, climate advocates/scientists and the establishment system that supports them need to be, at the very least, squeaky clean and highly rigorous in their approach as to what they are claiming is scientific truth.
So far we, the public, have seen the exact opposite of rigorousness and impartiality in the field of climate science in general. Instead it is characterised by political advocacy, lies, fraud, suppression of dissent, coverup, data and methods hiding, data laundering, journalistic gate-keeping and all the rest the tricks of the propaganda trade. In dealing with a highly complex and nebulous subject such as climate, this is the fastest road to bad science you can possibly imagine. Thus, until such studies as to which you refer are rigorously gone over and pronounced kosher by non-believers with an axe to grind in finding fault with them, I personally am not going to take them too seriously. You of course must find your own way along whatever you think is the path to salvation. By all means Lukey, run along and carry on saving the world if that is what you feel you must do.
“Get off the blog you contemptible clown.”
My apologies for this longer than usual rant.
Sod:
Your comments are becoming progressively more irrational, and I wonder if this is a sign of desperation.
The following is so irrational that it is funny.
I said:
“(Incidentally, I wonder why some people think a rise of global temperature of 2 degC would be catastrophic when global temperature rises by nearly double that during each year).”
And I obtained the silly rsponse:
”for heavens sake – do we need to tell you that?”
To which I replied:
“Yes! You most certainly do.”
You answered:
“pretty bizarre.
let me translate this into a situation that might be easier to understand: daily temperature fluctuates by nearly 20 °C. now your question is, would a permanent change of halve of it (10°C) make any difference?!? (yes. no more snow in winter, complete change in vegetation….)
and as denialists constantly forget this: the fluctuation will continue even with the increased temperature and will lead to massive heat spikes! “
My point was and is that scare-mongers assert a rise of global temperature by only 2 degC would be catastrophic, but global temperature fluctuates by nearly 4 degC during each year. In other words, reality demonstrates that the scare-mongers’ assertion is false.
Sorry, but I will not let you “translate” my point into something else.
So, armwaving about daily or other temperature fluctuations in localities has nothing to do with observed global temperature variation. And unproven fears of “massive heat spikes” are patent nonsense based on pure scare-mongering conjecture.
Please try to be rational and to discuss points that are raised. “Translating” points into other matters is the logical error titled ‘straw man’.
Richard
sod pulls the consensus lever again; CO2, which is dissolved in the oceans, can precipitate to form calcite which is continually recycled with the ocean water onto the Earth’s plates and into the mantle; this is the reason why Earth’s CO2 is generally declining; as this interglacial winds down it won’t matter how much CO2 humanity is putting into the atmosphere because the largest natural sink of the ocean will really pick up its absorption rate.
Back onto the topic of geoengineering and while I can understand Richard’s point about keeping the pollies happy with stunt proposals like whitening clouds [and I hope this is Lomborgs rationale too and he is not serious about this] I really think the answer is not altering the physical landscape but pantropy, altering the human physicality or human engineering; we could, for instance, turn sod into a perambling pile of dirt with super sink capacity; other people we could transform into radiative beings whose wavelength corresponds to the window frequencies; in this way the heat trapping properties of CO2 can be countered by an expansion of window wavelengths and the population can be reduced at the same time as the AGW supporters who, no doubt will volunteer for this honour, depart Earth to spread their message across the universe.
What wavelength would you like to be luke?
Taking a squizz at his hot engine pic, I guess Luky to be a member of Generation XYZ. Probably retro-cool UV would be his chosen color with sunnies to match. At least he doesn’t seem to drive a Prius, which would make him a Green Window Womper. I don’t think the AGW universal light spreaders will have much of a chance against the aliens though. Their advanced solar panel driven UFOs will be quickly turned into a pile of slobbering orange goo.
dribble,
“Luke” does not exist.
“Luke” is an ensemble of over employed govt. bureaucrats who make money off of AGW hype.
The idea that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration could acidify the oceans is plain daft.
Henry’s law:
At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid.
what part of it do you not understand?
” I confess I have not followed the careers of Raupach and his allegedly esteemed co-authors in minute detail, nor do I see why I should be required to do so. ” – no but you’re happy to anonymously libel them without investigation of any sort. Typical denialist. I didn’t bother reading past that confession.
Richard Courtney – sigh 2C change in mean is a massive change to ecological zones, and extreme temperatures (being observed). Moreover how the extra energy is redistributed bringing drought to a new sub-tropics will be the new reality. Already happening.
Hunter – Luke Inc is paid big bucks by the Australian Climate Federation and Light Horse to wage war on denialist scum. We have have at least 30 volunteers on the front line 24 x 7. More than you earn doofus.
What you say about Henry’s law is true sod but only in an ideal world. CO2 behaves according to Henry’s law only in the laboratory with pure CO2 and pure water. In an environment as complicated as the ocean there are many chemical reactions taking place which complicate the outcome and invalidate Henry’s law constants. Perhaps it is you who need to improve your understanding of how CO2 reacts in an ocean environment.
Sod:
I understand Henry’s Law but you clearly do not. Please look up buffering.
Your tedious obfuscations may impress the ignorati who frequent alarmis web sites but they are a source of annoyance and amusement here.
Richard
Luke:
I asked why 2 C change in mean global temperature would be “catastrophic” when nearly double that change to mean global temperature occurs both up and down during each year.
You replied:
“Richard Courtney – sigh 2C change in mean is a massive change to ecological zones, and extreme temperatures (being observed). Moreover how the extra energy is redistributed bringing drought to a new sub-tropics will be the new reality. Already happening.”
Clearly, it is blatantly false to assert that “2C change in mean is a massive change to ecological zones” because mean global tmperature varies by 3.8C during each year, and local change of 2C is a minor change to ecological zones that often happens for periods of years and decades. Also, there is no observed increase to droughts in the sub-tropics so your claim that this is “already happening” is either your misunderstanding or a lie.
Please answer the question
why is 2 C change in mean global temperature thought to portend catastrophe when nearly double that change to mean global temperature occurs both up and down during each year?
Your answer needs to be a plain explanation of why a variation of much less than happens during each year would be a catastrophe.
The answer should not include assertions that additional droughts are happening when there is no observed increase to droughts. It should not include assertions that 2C change in mean global temperature would be an ecological catastrophe when there is no evidence of any kind that it would (unless you consider vine growing in London as happened in the MWP was a catastrophe). It should not include scaremongering assertions.
It should be an explanation of why a variation so small that nearly double that variation occurs during each year would be a catastrophe.
Richard
Marcus
Now that is interesting though the cause of the French Revolution is complex but it seems linked to the State requiring ever increasing amounts of money to conduct wars. Cecil Rhode’s main ambition was to get the US colonies back for England and I think they succeeded, though not in the sense most of us would have thought – the link seems to be in the money area, and there is plenty of thoughtful commentary on the Mises and Lew Rockwell sites.
Sod,
Your understanding of science seems a little incomplete – if you assert that increasing CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere will amplify the variation around the dirurnal median temperature, then that implies
1. The median does not change but it gets hotter and colder.
2. This suggests that the median would not change.
And is this observed?
My own observations using an Oregon brand weather station, is no.
Rather I am far more amused with listening to the radio to learn what tomorrow’s temperatures are, and then discovering that the prediction was out slightly, by a degree or two, and far in excess of the IPCC predictions for 50 years hence.
They are doing scientology and numerology – it’s an age old ploy to gull the mob into supporting society’s parasites – the ruling elite though from Luke’s comments here one gets the impression that the impeccable Fabian mannerisms occasionally give way to boorishness.
Interesting to see that our Australian Fabians occasionaly post here. You do know what their long term goal is, don’t you?
Catastrophe is the words of denialist scum. It’s verballing. Serious consequences is mine.
2C in a mean also moves both end of the distribution of temperature. Minima will.do increase and maxima will/do increase. High temperature extremes will get higher, and frost frequency lower. I’m stunned that you don’t perceive the significant changes that may bring. You’re not moving a single temperature – you’re moving a whole probability distribution. Just on pest species – more temperature means more insect generations, less frost means less insect mortality. Less frost means reduced vernalisation for crops like pome fruits and olives to set fruit.
2C in oceans can mean the difference between EL Nino events and not. @C over large areas is a lot of energy – how this energy is redistributed as anomalies and oscillations will be most interesting. The denialist mind-trap with AGW is to think uniformitarianism of response. Rainfall patterns will/have move(d).
Drought and the sub-tropics is on the move.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2005/2005-01-11-10.asp
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/pdsi.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/full/ngeo.2007.38.html
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/researchletters/CAWCR_Research_Letters2.pdf
“You do know what their long term goal is, don’t you?” – our goal is is expose denialist shonks, scammers and science pagans at every turn. Especially you mate ! So tell us – how much data have you logged on your Oregon – same location was it – like on top of the caravan?
Surely you’d have a little stats analysis of your temperature measurements to share with us. Unless of course you’re bluffing. Let’s see it today?
As the AGW true believers and extremists paint themselves into tinier and tinier corners, they will pretend they were never predicting apocalypse at all.
As we see here.
‘Catastrophe’ is exactly the words used by the AGW promoters.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/56125/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/obama-climate-change
Just to pick two references.
Until, of course, ‘global warming’ became ‘climate change’.
Hint to the Lukes:
El Nino’s were happening long before there was industrialized civilization.
And rain patterns have always been on the move.
Only historically illiterate people think otherwise, and only cynical AGW promoters try to pretend not.
Apocalyptic cults like AGW are always wrong.
And intellectual cowards like ‘Luke’ always dissemble and toss up their own poo and slink away to try and distract people. And AGW is full of intellectual cowards.
And the hangers on of apocalyptic cults, like, say govt. bureaucrats sponging money off of the apocalypse du jour, pretend like they were not really part of it when it all falls apart.
Richard Courtney, a floating city is not a locked in permanent solution. If we were to discover that we were cooling too fast we could adjust the heat balance quickly with nothing more radical than a new coat of dark paint on the roof.
And in any event, there would never be just one solution. Rather, any number of “horses for courses” would be the smartest response.
Likewise, if we were under threat from a serious global cooling then the pumping (by tidal pumps?) of sea water into dry desert lakes would produce a similar localised reversal of albedo. In fact, there are two very large sub-sea level depressions in North Africa (one in Egypt, one in Tunisia) that could significantly alter local albedos and local climate if connected to the Mediteranean.
I agree that AGW hemmorrhaging polliticians have painted themselves into a corner in order to win elections and they think that their only way out is to murder their country’s wealth to appear to be in control.
Sadly they still retain a large, if receeding, supply of supporters like the alarmist creeps on this site to back up their RAT taxes.
“Plan B tomorrow, not suicide today” has to be the rational approach which can be done through varied processes and will get all the hypocritical bleeders off the hook.
It all gets down to how these hypocrites can spin the policy making.
There are too many committed green hypocrites to make life easy for them.
Luke,
Thanks, confirms I am hitting the target, so after work go and cry with your mates over a beer – I am sure the social democratic economist (now there is an oxymoron if there ever was one, since economic calculus is not possible under social democracy) will console you.
Luke,
Moving a whole probability distribution by raising the average temperature 2 degrees Celsius? A probability distribution is an abstraction, so this is impressive – what’s it made of, a balloon containing CO2? Heat that up all you want – it won’t rise and neither will the probability distribution either.
Whoops sorry – this does happen in your virtual world, doesn’t it.
Luke says:
“I’m stunned that you don’t perceive the significant changes that may bring.” and
“Just on pest species – more temperature means more insect generations, less frost means less insect mortality.”
Well having looked closely at the research on insect vectors, I can tell you categorically that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support what you say.
Similarly there is no evidence at all of increased tropical storm activity, or significant rise in sea levels.
In summary there is no scientific evidence of any “significant changes”. You are talking politics, not science.
“Well having looked closely at the research on insect vectors, I can tell you categorically that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support what you say.” Well MagB I can categorically tell you that it does have an effect on agricultural species.
There is good evidence of increased storm intensity and sea levels are clearly rising.
We’re not talking politics or science – you’re talking utter denialist rot.
Louis yes you don’t know about probability distributions as your sample size of a single neurone prevents you. Take a hike gramps.
Luke:
Firstly, I thank you for the laugh. You say:
“Catastrophe is the words of denialist scum. It’s verballing. Serious consequences is mine.”
So, you are saying that Rajendra Pechauri (the IPCC Chairman) is “denialist scum”.
Then you assert “serious consequences” but fail to quantify “serious”.
I call the economic effects of constraining carbon dioxide emissions at their present level “serious consequences” because the constraints would kill more than 2 billion people (mostly children) before 2050.
Then you say the cause of your purported “serious consequences” would be:
“2C in a mean also moves both end of the distribution of temperature. Minima will.do increase and maxima will/do increase. High temperature extremes will get higher, and frost frequency lower.:”
Sorry, but No! That is plain wrong.
Sea surface temperature is constrained to a maximum temperature of 305K and it achieves that value in the tropics. (This was first determined by Ramanathan&Collins, Nature, 1990, and has been independently confirmed by several studies since). Almost all land surface contains moisture and, therefore, it cannot rise above that maximum, either (there are a few small dry, desert areas that could and do get hotter but they are too small for them to be significant).
Therefore, it is not true to say that “High temperature extremes will get higher” although localities distant from the tropics would obtain an increase to highest temperatures. And the possible increase to highest temperatures would be greatest nearest to the poles. This would be a net benefit for ecological systems and for humans.
You admit that “frost frequency” will reduce. This is a clear benefit because cold weather kills many more people than hot weather.
Then you say to me;
“I’m stunned that you don’t perceive the significant changes that may bring. You’re not moving a single temperature – you’re moving a whole probability distribution. Just on pest species – more temperature means more insect generations, less frost means less insect mortality. Less frost means reduced vernalisation for crops like pome fruits and olives to set fruit.”
Your assertios are so wrong as to be ridiculous. Warmer climate and higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concetration both increase crop yields, and less frost means less crop damage: ask any farmer if you do not already know this. The increase to pest species is a function of more crops and could be controlled as it now is.
It seems that you are asserting increase to agricultural production is “serious consequences”. I call it a blessing on human kind.
Then you continue with the usual meaningless scare-monger assertion and twaddle. And you attempt to justify your nonsense with name-calling: i.e. “denialist mind-trap with AGW is to think uniformitarianism of response”. But the denialism is yours because you assume that natural changes that have always happened are a result of AGW: prove it if you want others to believe it!
Rainfall patterns have always “moved”: e.g. the Sahara was a fertile region only a few thousand years ago. And regions of drought have always varied. Scare-mongers used to claim that droughts would increase but since that has not happened you now say “drought and the sub-tropics is on th move”. Natural change is natural: accept it, live with it, and cope with it as better people than you always have.
Your asertion of change to ElNino displays your ignorance. El Nino is caused by ocean upwelling induced by changed wind patterns. There is no evidence that suggests its cause is affected in any way by mean global temperature and much evidence that it is not.
In coclusion, in addition to my thanks for the laugh, I thank you for demonstrating that you do not know of any “serious consequences” that would be induced by an increase of 2C in mean global temperature.
Richard
Richard, i don t have time to post at the moment. but i would like you to explain this further:
Sod:
I understand Henry’s Law but you clearly do not. Please look up buffering.
how will “buffering” keep the oceans from changing ph, when we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
and i hope i got you wrong, but what did you mean by this:
You have cause and effect confused concerning ‘ocean acidification’. The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased because the alkalinity of the oceans has reduced slightly with resulting alteration to the solution equilibrium of carbon dioxide in the air.
do you really believe that the oceans are a net source and not a sink of CO2?
Luke:
You are strong in providing insults, and firm in your belief in the superstition of AGW, but you are very weak in evidence and logic that would support your belief. For example, you say;
“There is good evidence of increased storm intensity and sea levels are clearly rising.”
There is no evidence that storm intensity is rising. Indeed, both storm intensity and frequency have reduced recently.
Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 years as a result of residual response to the end of the last Ice Age. The rate of sea level rise has reduced in very recent years and this confirms that the Earth has been cooling in very recent years.
AGW is a political scam. It is anti-science and it threatens to damage the reputation of all science when (as is inevitable with efluxion of time) the public learns its nature. And it is an attempt to replace Enlightenment reasoning with superstitious fears (as your writings here demonstrate).
The ‘geo-engineering option’ (see my first posting above) offers a possible way out of the political scam. Your denial of empirical evidence demonstrates the anti-science nature of the scam. And people, including me, who support reason and intelligence against superstition will deny AGW-scaremongering in every way that we can.
Richard
Sod:
You ask me:
“do you really believe that the oceans are a net source and not a sink of CO2?”
Yes. See
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005).
Alternatively, I presented a summary of that work at Heartland-1. The paper is dry as dust but I tried to present it in an entertaining way. There is an audio and a video of that presentation on the web but neither shows the PP illustrations and the video is very poor quality.
To hear the audio go to
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork08/newyork2008-audio.html
Then scroll down to
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
8:45 – 10:15 a.m.
Track 2: Climatology
Then click on my name.
I think you and Luke will not see the joke in my introduction to that presentation, but I suspect some others here will get a laugh.
Richard
Ian Mott:
Thankyou for your recent exposition of your suggestion.
With that explanation, I now understand that you are not suggesting irreversible and drastic measures. As you say, your suggested method does fit within the ‘way out’ for politicians I am proposing.
I stand corrected, and I thank you for the correction.
Richard
So how does it feel to attend one of the great collections of shonks and spivs – like did you get off on it? And then to top it off with some publishing in E&E – whoo boy – head spin – I guess if you have to eat a shit sandwich – more bread helps.
BTW the way – your rebuttal is utter rot. As usual as a denialist you gloss over evidence that shows FACE experiments quiet variable in yield. Indeed increased CO2 will worsen frost sensitivity. I”m sure extra CO2 helps fertilise droughts. CO2 increase will see woody weeds choking out savannas. You’re an ecophysiological ignoramus.
And I’m sorry but have extreme temps have been getting higher.
I did not say there are no “natural changes” and I did not say GMST affects El Nino. So stop being verballing denialist eh?
The science on drought regions moving is in – but some dude who actually advertises attending Heartland & EE I’m sure wouldn’t be up with the literature.
AGW isn’t a scam – your pseudo-science is.
“Richard S. Courtney is a Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry) who lives in Epsom, Surrey (UK). [1] In the early 1990s Courtney was a Senior Material Scientist of the National Coal Board (also known as British Coal) and a Science and Technology spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management. [2]”
ho ho ho ho ho !
Luke:
“Louis yes you don’t know about probability distributions as your sample size of a single neurone prevents you. Take a hike gramps.”
Ah, this might mean I am a black hole? It too is a singularitu about which many brain fucked vultures circle.
Error _ spilling miztakes!
previous are corrected by Diktat !
(seig Heil! Seig Heil!)
For those unfamiliar with Goons, well, Seig Heil your self.
Alternatively, I presented a summary of that work at Heartland-1. The paper is dry as dust but I tried to present it in an entertaining way. There is an audio and a video of that presentation on the web but neither shows the PP illustrations and the video is very poor quality.
sorry Richard, but what you talk about is completely false.
you are making the same fault, as with the temperature increase by 2°C. the idea that great fluctuations somehow prevent a steady increase is simply false.
mathematically , you can simply look at a sum of a linear function with a sin wave. like f(x)=0.1x+sin(x). the massive fluctuation of that curve will NOT prevent the steady rise of the curve.
i can only assume how the few real (climate) scientists present during the conference must have cringed while they were forced to listen to such blatant nonsense.
any explanation of the rise in CO2 by other means must explain what happens to the CO2 that humans add.
your introduction is pure insanity. really hard to listen to.
sorry Richard, but your understanding of mathematics is on a primary school level. i doubt that you can enlighten climate scientists, until you improved you basic understanding of math.
Luke and Sod:
Whomever or whatever you may be, your personal comments are fatuous, insulting and untrue. And they are the work of cowards because you hide behind anonymity so you cannot be called to account for your lies and insults.
If you think those lies and insults support your case then you are in error because they mislead about me but tell much about you.
Several of the above postings from several people demonstrate that your pretence at having some knowledge and understanding of science is seen through. The pretence may fool those who have been fooled into believing in AGW, but it induces jaw-dropping incredulity and laughter from others. For example, Sod’s comments on ocean acidification are (to put it politely) naïve, and Luke’s assertions concerning the effects of carbon dioxide on plant growth are the opposite of reality (as every horticulturist knows).
Luke:
Nothing you say about me is true. It seems that you have searched the web for the sites that only exist to smear climate realists and you have copied lies from them the lies that were first promoted by Hunter, then copied by DeSmog Blog, the equally cowardly professional liar who operates under the pseudonym of Eli Rabbit, and others.
Even where you say I live is wrong. My address is
88 Longfield
Falmouth
Cornwall
TR11 4 SL
United Kingdom.
Indeed, I have never lived in Epsom and I have never visited the place.
I was once Technical Editor for CoalTrans International but I have not had that job for a decade.
I was THE Senior Material Scientist at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment that was closed (for political reasons) in 1997.
E&E is the journal that sunk the ‘hockey stick’ and AGW-scaremongers have been smearing it since then.
And it felt wonderful to attend Heartland-1 where hundreds of the world’s best climate scientists met and discussed real science. Fortunately, it was not disrupted by your sort.
Sod:
I said I suspected you would not like the Introduction to my Heartland-1 presentation, and you say that suspicion was right.
But you think the presentation was not well-received. Sorry to disappoint you but the opposite is true. The audio records the applause. The subsequent audio records the Chairman of the Session saying nobody would like to try to “follow that”. I had no negative comments in the Q&A Session (only positive ones) as the audio of that records. And several people asked for copies of the paper.
And it is obvious that my knowledge of mathematics is superior to yours but, of course, that is not saying much. Indeed, you say;
“any explanation of the rise in CO2 by other means must explain what happens to the CO2 that humans add.”
Yes, it enters into the carbon cycle where it is a trivial and insignificant addition. If you had listened to the audio of my presentation then you would have learned that. But learning, facts, and information seem to roll off you and Luke like water from a duck’s back.
Richard
Sod:
I notice that you and Luke have added to your insults but neither of you has answered my questions in a posting above. I remindthat I wrote above:
“What are you afraid of? Are you afraid the public will become aware that man-made global warming is nonsense? Or is it that you fear my suggestion could be successful in stopping the harmful policies now being attempted by politicians? Or do you really believe that man-made global warming is a real threat and you want to ensure it is inflicted on the world?
You falsely – and repeatedly – accuse me of a lie, so I think it reasonable for me to demand that you come clean on what you are doing and why.”
Richard
Yes, it enters into the carbon cycle where it is a trivial and insignificant addition. If you had listened to the audio of my presentation then you would have learned that. But learning, facts, and information seem to roll off you and Luke like water from a duck’s back.
i indeed forced myself to listen to the audio. it is absolutely obvious that everything that you said is false and you will neither find anyone with any credential who will support your idea about CO2, nor will you be able to publish this nonsense in a peer reviewed journal.
even the denialist top scientists on CO2 and the oceans, Tim Curtin, completely disagrees with you, and believes that human CO2 is a significant factor in the current rise of CO2 levels.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/not-evil-just-wrong/?cp=2#comment-134075
What are you afraid of? Are you afraid the public will become aware that man-made global warming is nonsense? Or is it that you fear my suggestion could be successful in stopping the harmful policies now being attempted by politicians? Or do you really believe that man-made global warming is a real threat and you want to ensure it is inflicted on the world?
AGW is real. i fear that corporate interests will continue to stall real action.
Sod:
You have made a fool of yourself again when you say:
“i indeed forced myself to listen to the audio. it is absolutely obvious that everything that you said is false and you will neither find anyone with any credential who will support your idea about CO2, nor will you be able to publish this nonsense in a peer reviewed journal. ”
The research paper is a peer reviewed publication in a peer reviewed journal. Its findings are clear and irrefutable. Indeed, nobody has suggested any flaw in our analyses, and I note that you do not.
Science is not decided by beauty contests and, therefore, nothing is indicated by the fact that somebody thinks other than that which our analysis reveals. But I suppose you do know that really.
AGW is anti-scientific, superstitious nonsense as your posturings here assist to demonstrate. Now, will you answer the questions instead of presenting silly assertions such as ” it is absolutely obvious that everything that you said is false and you will neither find anyone with any credential who will support your idea about CO2″?
Richard
The research paper is a peer reviewed publication in a peer reviewed journal. Its findings are clear and irrefutable. Indeed, nobody has suggested any flaw in our analyses, and I note that you do not.
E&E is not peer reviewed. they published even the Beck nonsense on CO2.
you got no (negative) reactions to your paper, because nobody doing science reads E&E.
i did answer you question.
here is mine again: where does the human produced CO2 (according to Tim Curtin more than double of what shows up as increase in the atmosphere) go to?
You falsely – and repeatedly – accuse me of a lie, so I think it reasonable for me to demand that you come clean on what you are doing and why.”
i don t think that i accused you of a lie. i accuse you of asking for politicians to mislead the public. this happens to often already.
hope for a miracle is basically a stupid policy. thinking that the public will fall for this on climate change is stupid.
Sod:
Your childishness is too silly to bother with so I will answer your latest pieces of nonsense but will not make any further responses to you and the other anonymous and abusive semi-literate who has posted here.
I only make this final reply to you to correct two of your lies.
Firstly, E&E is a highly respected and peer reviewed journal. I have the honour to be on its Editorial Board and, thus, I am fully aware of its peer review process. Indeed, I have been asked to be the Guest Editor for the next edition of it.
And you say that you “don’t think” (which is obviously true) that you accused me of misleading the public. You did, and you repeated that lie when called on it. This is recorded in the above postings for all to see.
The above postings from you and Luke (whomever and whatever the two of you are) are typical of the behaviours, arguments and evidence that AGW-scaremongers use to promote AGW. I have much better things to do than answer lies and smears. Therefore, as my final contribution here, I suggest that others can assess your postings here as an indication of the cult of AGW and the validity of your case.
Richard
PS I answered your question about CO2 in a previous posting, and I am sorry but it is not in my power to assist you with your reading difficulties.
Richard,
“Luke” is an ensemble of lazy bureaucrats with much time on their hands. (Are there any others these days?)
Discussing rationally with them is a ‘pearls before swine exercise.
AGW apparently is seen by them as a job security scam, and they have no interest int he politics of AGW reflecting the truth- that AGW is a bunch of bilge.
Firstly, E&E is a highly respected and peer reviewed journal. I have the honour to be on its Editorial Board and, thus, I am fully aware of its peer review process. Indeed, I have been asked to be the Guest Editor for the next edition of it.
i can only hope that you know the difference between an editor and a peer reviewer.
Pielke had this to say about this “highly respected” journal:
2. On our Energy and Environment paper from 1999, had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.) We were invited to submit a piece in 1997 or 1998 and we had this in prep and sent it in.
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/should_hurricanes_be_part_of_t.html#comment-86797
peer review requires independence and expertise. both seem to be absent from E&E, as shown by multiple papers that passed the process. (Beck, on CO2..)
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2006/10/beckco2.png
Soddy: “peer review requires independence and expertise. both seem to be absent from E&E, as shown by multiple papers that passed the process.”
Peer review seems to be either missing or a mutant product of climate science incest in Nature and Science as well. (MBH98 etc…) Yawn…… And your point is?
Peer review seems to be either missing or a mutant product of climate science incest in Nature and Science as well. (MBH98 etc…) Yawn…… And your point is?
this sounded a lot like you were comparing E&E to Nature or Science. you can not seriously have done that?
it also sounds like you are comparing an irrelevant use of the (perhaps) false statistical method with the utterly impossible graph produced by Beck?
“Firstly, E&E is a highly respected and peer reviewed journal. I have the honour to be on its Editorial Board ” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
oooo – it hurts – so HTF did you publish this then
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
Archibald, D. 2006, Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response Energy and Environment, 17, 29-38.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa – good one mate !
Oh come off it luke, Nexus as your authority!? He’s a replicant.
Richard; I would be interested in obtaining a copy of your paper about the oceans being a net emitter of CO2; any links?
Soddy: “this sounded a lot like you were comparing E&E to Nature or Science. you can not seriously have done that?”
Absolutely. Science journals are a hierarchy of prestige, not a monopoly on the truth or ultimate importance of the papers published therein.
“it also sounds like you are comparing an irrelevant use of the (perhaps) false statistical method with the utterly impossible graph produced by Beck?”
Yawn….. if you think that the issues with MBH98 and the continuing scams produced by its main author and his pals were and are irrelevant to the conduct of science then you are living on a different planet than I am. I have not offered any opinion on whatever graphs were produced by Beck. I would consider that his efforts to determine past CO2 concentrations are interesting but probably not reliable.
Cohenite:
You ask me:
“Richard; I would be interested in obtaining a copy of your paper about the oceans being a net emitter of CO2; any links?”
My Heartland-1 presentation is an exposition of that paper and contains extensive quotes from it. If you email me then I will send you a copy of the paper of that presentation. My email address is
RichardSCourtney@aol.com
However, there is no ‘link’ to the original paper because Elsevier (the publisher of E&E) charges for copies of papers. And I do not have a web site because my consultancy business requires extreme client confidentiality (life would be much easier if the mythical ‘oil money’ from industry existed).
Incidentally, some of the above comments concerning peer review and the reputation of journals display astonishing ignorance. Scientific worth of information is not demonstrated by who provides the information, where it is published, or whether it is peer reviewed.
A Nazi child molester may discover a scientific truth, and a saint may make a scientific error.
The seminal work on aeronautics was by two bicycle salemen and was published in a journal on bee-keeping, but it seems to be useful to Boeing and AirBus Idustrie.
The original papers on Special Relativity and General Relativity were provided by a second-rate patents clerk and they were published in Nature without peer review, but they revolutionised physics.
etc.
I suggest that the smearing of some journals and the clearly unjustified flattery of others (see above) is merely an attempt to pretend that inconvenient truths can be ignored.
All information needs to be assessed on its merits and should not be accepted or rejected on the basis of who said it or where.
Richard
Cohenite:
Upon reflection, I think I should add a brief summary of the issue in one of our 2005 papers so others can read it here.
Atmospheric CO2 rises and falls each year by much, much more than the increase to CO2 in the air over a year. Therefore, the annual increase is the residual of the rise and fall each year.
The amount of CO2 emitted from oceans and biosphere is an order of magnitude greater than the increase to CO2 in the air each year. And the amount of CO2 sequestered by the oceans and biosphere is an order of magnitude greater than the increase to CO2 in the air each year.
Hence, any small change in the behaviour of the emitting and/or sequestering parts of the carbon cycle results in a change to the CO2 in the air.
The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to almost half the human emission. The human emission is about 6.5 GtC/year but the accumulation rate is about 3 GtC/year (these figures are very conservative). However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated. The system does not ‘know’ where an emitted CO2 molecule originated and there are several CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere that are much larger than the human emission. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year (it is probably much more, but I am being very, very conservative) with 150 Gt of this being from natural origin and 6.5 Gt from human origin. So, on the average, about 2% of all emissions accumulate.
This is a small change to the atmosphere. And it is the observed change to a single sensitive part of the carbon cycle.
The carbon in the air is less than 2% of the carbon flowing between all the parts of the carbon cycle. And the recent increase to the carbon in the atmosphere is less than a third of that less than 2%. Furthermore, the annual flow of carbon into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is less than 0.02% of the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle.
It is not obvious that so small an addition to the carbon cycle is certain to disrupt the system because no other activity in nature is so constant that it only varies by less than +/- 0.02% per year.
There are many possible reasons why such small changes could be expected to any natural system. And the uncertainties (i.e. inherent errors in the estimates) of the flows between parts of the carbon cycle are much greater than the observed changes to atmospheric CO2.
Thus, there are several methods that can be used to model the system. Our paper provides six such models with three of them assuming a significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause and the other three assuming no significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause. Each of our models matches the empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the IPCC uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.
So, whichever of our models one chooses to champion then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible.
Also, the models each give a different indication of future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause.
But there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause are
(a) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,
but
(b) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.
Hence, it cannot be known what if any effect altering the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide will have on the future atmospheric CO2 concentration.
People wanting more information on the models can listen to the audio by using the link I provide in an above posting.
Richard
Thanks Richard; I’ll be in touch.
Richard, your comment; “Atmospheric CO2 rises and falls each year by much, much more than the increase to CO2 in the air over a year. Therefore, the annual increase is the residual of the rise and fall each year”, reminded me of this paper;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1828
The Stockwell piece is a comment on the recent McLean et al paper which sought to establish a prominent role for natural process in the proxy form of SOI/ENSO in determining temperature variation and trend; David Stockwell reanalyses the McLean data and finds a substantial natural contribution to variation and trend; the mechanism for this is increased insolation during El Nino years which is not quite compensated for by subsequent La Nina years; as a result there is an increasing trend through PDO phase shifts. As a thought I wonder whether the seasonal residual in CO2 is related to the El Nino dominance.
Cohenite:
Thankyou for your comment. The Mc Lean paper is good.
However, I stand by my point that the available information does not prove or disprove a significant anthropogenic contribution to recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Indeed, IPCC admits this in its TAR.
Several, anti-AGW-alarmists have demanded that I say the enthropogenic effect on the rise is not significant, but I will not say that. The fact is that the available data does not enable determination of whether or not the anthropogenic emission is significant to the rise (although it seems very improbable that it is).
Richard
“Thanks Richard; I’ll be in touch.” – “oooooo oooo Richard ” swoon – I’ve touched royalty
Jeez Cohers mate – you won’t be drinking in the Branxton pub again will you. Little Lord Fauntleroy indeed. But sell out ya mates – you and and Stockers might make it in the International denialists main game? You know – become famous like Kylie.
“The Mc Lean paper is good.” – Dick that’s all we need. But I guess being the E&E board you’d know that the odd odd one can get through. Possibly the 2nd worst climate paper of all time and Sir Richard likes it. GAWD !
But Richard let me encourage you to follow Cohers and Stockwell down the garden path. Perhaps they might be allowed to put a paper in E&E and you could join their party ? They’ve got the Chow Mein test you know !
Anyway go – time for supper – I have to practice having my Darjeeling with little finger extended and eating cucumber sangers.
Phil has written (with his mouth pen) that he’d like to cross his legs but alas he can’t move them after the accident with the Mixmaster and the goat.
Friends:
Despite any and all provocations I will continue to refuse to rise to the anonymous buffoon who posts here under the name of Luke. However, another lie about me has been posted here by he/she/they/it, and it needs to be corrected.
I do not have, and I am not likely ever to get, a knighthood.
Anybody who chooses to assert that I have said I have a knighthood in actuality or by refusal to deny the matter is a liar. And above postings from so-called Luke demonstrate why it is necessary for me to spend my time saying this.
If Luke or any others make any claims about me please disregard them because I have better things to do than waste time correcting lies about me and will not be doing it here again.
Richard
Good show old chap. Don’t let those rapscallions wule the woost. Of course you’re not knighted. They just don’t hand them out to anyone. I’m sorry – I was just pulling your leg old boy. Like E&E papers do.
The clearest evidence that Richard is correct on ocean CO2 fluxes is in the Mauna Loa atmospheric records. CO2 went up by 3ppmv in 1998 which is about 16Gt yet, there is no evidence, nor even a plausible theory, to explain how or why human emissions might have jumped so high in a single year. The IPCC continues to maintain that human emissions were in the order of 7Gt during that decade. One can only conclude that if it difference did not come from oceanic release then it must have been plucked, miraculously, from Al Gore’s backside.
The clearest evidence that Richard is correct on ocean CO2 fluxes is in the Mauna Loa atmospheric records. CO2 went up by 3ppmv in 1998 which is about 16Gt yet, there is no evidence, nor even a plausible theory, to explain how or why human emissions might have jumped so high in a single year. The IPCC continues to maintain that human emissions were in the order of 7Gt during that decade. One can only conclude that if the difference did not come from oceanic release then it must have been plucked, miraculously, from Al Gore’s backside.
Interestingly, the sinister departmental coven known as “Luke” has never once, in more than 3 years of me mentioning this fact, provided a satisfactory explanation as to where this additional CO2 might have come from or why there is no commensurate decline in the following years. This absence of a commensurate decline would seem to indicate that the additional CO2 was not part of any decadal cycles.
Richard S Courtney wrote:
Understandable. Thanks for the contributions you have made, and I hope you will hang around – it’s nice to have someone post here who doesn’t appear to have already made up their mind and will consider relevent evidence regardless of it’s source and any percieved biases of that source.
I know that Luke will suggest that I, for one, have already made up my mind – and to some extent that’s true, in that I have already decided that there is much to learn (even by the “experts”) and that there is a significant political interference in this field that I fear will, ultimately, be very bad for climate science in particular and science in general.
For myself, I would much rather that the supporters of the AGW hypothesis looked for contradictory evidence rather than confirmatory evidence, as such endeavours invariably lead to new and greater insights into the true nature of things than any confirmatory evidence ever does, as the history of science will clearly show to any who care to look.
Ian Mott:
Thankyou for your comments. I write to make a clarification.
During each year the oceans release much, much more carbon dioxide than human activity. They release it in the summer and take it back during the winter. So, an increase to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would result from lowered oceanic emission and/or sequestration. And altered oceanic emission and sequestration would occur when the temperature and especially the pH of the ocean surface layer temperature varies. Indeed, the temperature effect as a result ocean upwelling is an observed effect of ENSO.
Hence, it is not strictly true that there needs to be additional oceanic emission to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration because reduced oceanic sequestration would do it, too. And the cold water that upwells has a pH affected by the history of its travel around the globe (that has taken centuries).
Quirk’s analysis of the geographical distribution of atmospheric carbon isotopes agrees with this interpretation.
Furthermore, this interpretation provides an explanation of Beck’s data which indicates large, rapid fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide that were simultaneous at several localities in the nineteenth century. The pH of cold ocean waters may have been altered by transient volcanism at sea bottom centuries ago, their pH affected atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration when those waters were returned to the surface by the thermohaline circulation.
There is much more that is not known than is known about the carbon cycle. Investigation of the unknowns is inhibited by a completely unjustified certainty that the carbon cycle is being significantly affected by the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
Richard
Ian Mott:
Thankyou for your comments. I write to make a clarification.
During each year the oceans release much, much more carbon dioxide than human activity. They release it in the summer and take it back during the winter. So, an increase to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would result from lowered oceanic emission and/or sequestration. And altered oceanic emission and sequestration would occur when the temperature and especially the pH of the ocean surface layer varies. Indeed, the temperature effect as a result ocean upwelling is an observed effect of ENSO.
Hence, it is not strictly true that there needs to be additional oceanic emission to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration because reduced oceanic sequestration would do it, too. And the cold water that upwells has a pH affected by the history of its travel around the globe (that has taken centuries).
Quirk’s analysis of the geographical distribution of atmospheric carbon isotopes agrees with this interpretation.
Furthermore, this interpretation provides an explanation of Beck’s data which indicates large, rapid fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide that were simultaneous at several localities in the nineteenth century. The pH of cold ocean waters may have been altered by transient volcanism at sea bottom centuries ago, their pH affected atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration when those waters were returned to the surface by the thermohaline circulation.
There is much more that is not known than is known about the carbon cycle. Investigation of the unknowns is inhibited by a completely unjustified certainty that the carbon cycle is being significantly affected by the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
Richard
PS I hope this is not a repeat comment. I posted it once but it did not appear.