US cold wave implies nothing about global warming
Over the last few weeks the eastern United States has been hit by severe cold weather. A cold wave as it's been called. Because of the extreme low temperatues and the longer-than-normal duration many commentators are linking this event to Anthropogenic Global Warming; one group saying it proves AGM is happening, the other group saying the cold wave show global warming to be a fallacy (or expensive bullshit as Donald Trump eloquently called it).
Cliff Mass is a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington and he says it proves neither. According to the good professor, the cold wave was due to a 'substantial undulation' of the jet stream. The jet stream is very similar to the Long Wave Trough in the southern hemisphere. It's best described as a corridor of low pressure that guides storms - and sometimes swell! - around the globe.
Professor Mass has his own weather blog from which the following article is taken. Take a moment to read it and inform yourself on how the weather is being shoddily reported and incorrectly linked to larger climate patterns.
Make no mistake though, Professor Mass believes global warming is happening, yet as he says, "All this bogus reporting has done substantial damage."
The central and eastern US has just been in the midst of a major cold wave, with large regions dropping below zero F (-17.7C) and wind chills reaching below -30F (-34C). That is fact.
The problem is that the media, some non-governmental organisations, and plenty of individuals are making claims that this event has some kind of implication regarding anthropogenic global warming.
On one hand, some global warming sceptics suggest that such cold is clear evidence that global warming is nonsense. On the other, global warming “advocates” explain the cold wave as another example of extreme weather forced by increased greenhouse gases.
The truth? Both are wrong.
This individual event says nothing about the impacts of global warming.
Let me give you a sample of these unsupportable claims. On Monday I was listening to the NPR Program The TakeAway on which Gary Yohe, professor of Economics and Environmental Studies at Wesleyan University, explicitly stated that the cold wave was the work of global warming.
And Climate Central was pushing the same scary story.
According to Time Magazine:
Global warming is sometimes thought of more as “global weirding,” with all manner of complex disruptions occurring over time. This week’s events show that climate change is almost certainly screwing with weather patterns ways that go beyond mere increases in temperature—meaning that you’d be smart to hold onto those winter coats for a while longer.
And then on the other side, FOX News suggested that the cold wave indicated global cooling.
And hot air expert Donald Trump joined the fray with a well-constructed twitter message:
This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2014
I could give you a dozen more samples on both sides of this issue. All wrong.
One thing we do know is that the proximate cause of the current cold wave is a substantial undulation of the jet stream, with a deep trough over the central US (see map ar right). Ridges are associated with sinking motion and warming, while troughs are regions of low-level cooling with movement of cold air from the north on their western side. You will notice that the western US has a ridge, with above normal temperatures and a lack of storminess and snow!
Would we expect global warming to produce such a pattern? More on that later.
Let’s examine the claims of both sides of this extreme argument.
1. Global warming causes more extreme weather and thus cold waves
At first glance, you would not give much credence to this suggestion. If temperatures were warming due to mankind’s enhancement of greenhouse gases you would expect fewer cold waves.
But a few researchers came up with a hypothesis that as the poles warm the jet stream would weaken and that would result in more waviness of the jet stream. However, recent work by Professor Elizabeth Barnes of Colorado State has shown that there were methodological deficiencies in the research suggesting increased jet undulations with global warming. And that there is no observational evidence of increased waviness. Furthermore, there is little evidence that the jet approaching North America has weakened recently.
The IPCC, the global group of scientists that have come together to estimate the impacts of increased greenhouse gases, have been clear about their conclusions:
There is likely to be a decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks (i.e., periods of extreme cold lasting from several days to over a week) in NH winter in most areas.
The National Climatic Data Center has a page where you can plot the percentage of the country with an extreme low minimum temperatures (see blue bars in the figure below). The percentages are declining, which does not suggest cold waves are getting more extensive.
The bottom line: the claims that greenhouse warming causes more cold waves like we have seen this week really seems to be without any basis in observational evidence or in theory. The media needs to stop pushing this unsupported argument.
2. The current cold wave proves global warming is not occurring
This claim is really without any basis. Global warming will occur over the the coming century and only can be determined statistically since there is a lot of natural variability in the climate/weather system. One event proves nothing.
Furthermore, the real warming is in the future. As shown above, the undulations of the jet stream cause regional changes in temperature and thus there are both warm and cool areas.
So if you want to say that global warming is causing the cold and snow in the east, you would also have to say it is causing the warmth and poor-snow conditions in the West. So by their logic, Californians would say “global warming” is real, while easterners would claim the opposite. It gets kind of silly.
It is so frustrating that every major weather event causes such claims and counterclaims to be aired, with many media outlets unable to do the minimal research that would allow them to give the public more dependable information.
All this bogus reporting has done substantial damage, with many Americans believing that global warming is already causing our winter weather to become more extreme, while the observational evidence suggests no such thing. One day some sociologists will study this situation and the psychological elements that drove it.
Just to illustrate that extremes are not increasing in the US, NOAA maintains a Climate Extreme Index (CEI) that includes many parameters. Here is a plot of that index for winter for the last century for North America. No trend. //CLIFF MASS
This article was originally published at the Cliff Mass Weather Blog
First image and homepage image, Chris Burkard/National Geographic
Comments
The blue bars in first graph show an unprecedented period from the 80s to the present with less extreme minimum temperatures which clearly supports AGW. I have a problem with people stating that weather events are not related to AGW when all our weather is now the product of the changed climate. What they should say is that particular events fall within pre AGW variations. Many scientists and journalists talk about climate change as if it was in the future. They need to start talking in terms of the new and changing climate.
Here is one for you BB :)
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/10/08/3864474.htm?site=scien...
I think the point here tho, is that no single weather event is evidence of climate change, yet that's how it's reported in the press. Also, the evidence that these types of events are expected in greater (or less) frequency is not very strong yet.
I think your point is not inconsistent with the author.
I understand your point BB, living in a time when there appears to be significant and perhaps life changing climate change happening before our eyes it is difficult to disconnect the weather events we experience with the climate changes that might be driving them. Even more difficult is to determine what is driving the changes in climate. Unfortunately AGW is a hypothesis and despite thousands of scientists working to establish facts its such a complex matter that not much success has been found.
The period from the 80s to present in the first graph talked about cannot support AGW unless it was used in conjunction with other data, the period is far too short and does not indicate any correlation to anthropogenic inputs which are not in the data used to make the graph so inferences cannot be made about anthropogenic inputs from this graph. The graph is simply a record of temperature over a brief 102 years.
Im no climate change denier but it is important to keep the science factual and the theories, hypothesis, opinion and journalism should be consistent with what the science reveals.
Blind boy, first time post long time reader, look each to their own, we all have opinions, however a century, even two, three or four centuries of weather records is not enough for me to convince me global warming exists due to man made green house gases. I've read that volcanoes alone produce more green house gases than man can ever produce at present.
Australia has roughly over a hundred years of records, whose to say 300 yrs ago that Australia went through exactly the same 30 yr weather patterns of climate heating?
However in my surfing time and being a new south Welshman, it doe appear that north east swells aren't as frequent which could contribute to climate change.
No fact just opinion
North east ground swells that is, ie cyclones
Through ice core sampling scientists have got a pretty good grasp on CO2 levels dating back much further than 300 years. So even though we don't have official records we're aware of past climate fluctuations.
CO2 levels have never risen so radically as they have in the last 50-100 years. Coincidentally just the same time we started pumping copious amounts of it into the atmosphere.
must of been a lot of factories closed down in the 2007-2009 period
Your right Stu, CO2 levels have risen radically in the last 50-100 years and coincides closely with the beginning of the industrial revolution. Further to this there is a strong correlation between rising CO2 levels and rises in temperature. The question is - does increased CO2 cause an increase in temperature or does increased temperature cause an increase in CO2 levels?? There are strong arguments on both sides to this question.
With respect: I've never heard a lucid argument for the latter. Increased temperatures can cause an increase in CO2 levels in conditions such as runaway greenhouse effect but we're not dealing with that here and we're a while away from it also.
Fair and valid point stunet, but the polar ice caps have fluctuated, admittedly over vast periods time, With massive weather fluctuations due several factors over millions of years and the earth has been through much warmer periods caused by many factors. I'm of the opinion that we are going through a natural cycle of warming. This period of warming could be setting us up for a ice age period in a thousand years or so.. Warmer climate, heating of oceans, more rain, increased cloudiness, cooling of earth, ice age. But I'll be brown bread if it ever happens
No doubt. Despite what we think the Earth has never, ever been in stasis. Change is the norm. However, the degree of change - faster by many orders than at any other time in history - and the fact it coincides with the very point when man started putting CO2 in the air is too much of a coinkidink for me. Couldn't say it's impossible but I find it very, very, very improbable.
Too much at stake to base it on a coinkidink.
Stu ... The whole UHI debacle proved that even with modern direct recording of temperatures there can be vast mistakes made ..... so who's to say how acurate all the ice coreand countless other Proxy readings are actually that accurate .
The best hypothesis that matches all of the current WEATHER , ( not climate ) is that AGW will contribute to tightening of the gradient between the polar upper atmosphere lows and the mid lattitude's and an increase in Tropical regions ...
What this will influence , is that we will have more extreme differneces in weather closer together in time frames .... ie two weeks ago everyone in SE Aust was complaining about how cool to below average the Summer had been to date . fast forward to this week and SHAZAM instant Hell ......
Anyway the two mirror each other , Humans have short memories when it comes to weather , and computer models are just short of climate info to correctly predict future outcomes ........ end of story for atleast another decade or two ...... In the meantime short of bankrupting the world monetary system , perhaps we can improve the ways we do things .....
The main argument for temperature influencing CO2 and not the other way around is that the data shows increased temperature levels preceding increases in atmospheric CO2, this data does not fit the model of CO2 increases causing increased temperatures. If CO2 was causational then increases in temperature would follow increases in CO2.
Southy, you hit the nail on the head for me. It IS time to improve the way that we do things. The only problem I have with the Climate Change debate (apart from some flawed science) is that it takes up too much attention from good people, media, environmental groups, scientists and gets us no where in terms of real solutions. We shouldnt need a catastrophe like global warming to tell us to stop shitting up the environment. Its right there in front of us - air pollution, land pollution and water pollution is everywhere and anyone with half a brain can see that the way we are consuming cannot go on unfettered.
Here is one presentation of the evidence. What have you guys got?
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
This is a graph cited in the argument for/against CO2 causation -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
This should help.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
It doesnt help me understand the argument because it doesnt fit with the AGW argument. The article doesnt suggest that CO2 has such an immediate impact as we are led to believe by the current argument that the increase in temperature happened as a result of and at the same time as CO2 input from human industrialisation. To quote, "In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. " I cannot see how this resolves the argument?
Worth noting is that there has been more than one occasion that NASA have been exposed falsifying data in the climate change arena. NASA's Chief climate change scientist Dr James Hansen was exposed falsifying temperature records. Much of his research and opinion underpinned Al Gore's movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' which Hansen toured with. The same Al Gore who reached billionaire status off the back of carbon credits, low carbon technology and using his political position to forward his cause (voting through laws on methanol use for example) at the same time investing in Oil. This suggests more than a disingenuous position on the matter?
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperat...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a...
silicun, the article is explaining the particular set of data in the graph you provided a link to. In that context it states that carbon dioxide did not initiate the warmings. It does not imply that it CANNOT initiate warmings. The simple physics of the greenhouse effect make it impossible, all else being equal, for carbon dioxide not to warm the atmosphere. You cannot argue with that. If that was wrong Earth would have the same temperature as the moon.
Do some scientists overstate things? Probably. Do some behave unethically ? Perhaps. Pointing out these failings is all very well but they are largely irrelevant to the plain and simple truth that temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide concentration. There is a lot of money out there pushing misinformation and throwing up distracting arguments, don't fall for the crap. Have you heard of the Koch brothers?
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/pol...
You want unethical, THAT is unethical.
Donald Trump calling something "expensive bullshit".
Thats funny.
Seems as though calling nonsense on global warming from one event is like calling Kai Otton for the World Title after Portugal...
...Unless Surfing Life calls it of course. And then his sponsors come out say "no one else can feasibly win the title but Kai and anything else is just expensive bullshit".
Holy shit... Kai's the world champ!
I wish we would do away with the term 'global warming', and replace it with something else ... at the minimum it would stop what I like to call, "the clown continuum problem."
This being; every time there's a cold snap, turds like Trump like to champion their own self-propelled agendas about global warming being impossible, given it's minus 10 degrees outside.
I also think carbon taxes and the like aren't the answer to fixing the problem, re CO2 emissions.
The only true way to alleviate and reverse the cycle is for the world as a global unit to forgo its mass consumerism and thirst for technology and scale back to a much simpler life. This would never happen.
... even if by some miracle it did, the 1.3 billion cows of the world and the global summer bushfires each year account for 33% more global emissions than our man-made ones. Does their output alone make any effort we do redundant?
There's also a theory out there which hasn't been mentioned yet:
The earth has an expiry date. And us as humans (due to events we simply cannot control ie cows & methane and bushfire CO2 emissions) can do very little to change or alter that expiry date.
You've got two very closely related concepts there, Braithy. The carbon tax may have been painted as a 'tax grab' but it's real purpose is as an economic tool to steer industry and the market toward cleaner, more efficient technologies.
"an economic tool to steer industry and the market toward cleaner, more efficient technologies."
Yes, you are right.
But Australia alone contributes around 3-4% to all global emissions. In the absence of a total global commitment to the emission's cause, Australia's carbon tax is nothing more than posturing in the right direction, but not really achieving much. The whole, we're a pimple on a pumpkin bit ...
It would be a great cause if Australia were just responsible for the sky, climate and galaxy above her own head. In the absence of meteor armageddon, we might then be guaranteeing a longer, healthier future?
But while the world continues to indulge in all the old manufacturing practices based on the unprecedented human demand for the latest products, technologies and gadgets, the CO2 emission problem is far bigger than Australia alone.
Then there is the theory that even if the world all got on board and produced more efficient technologies, there's the problem that the yearly output of 1.3 billion cattle and the total sum of all bushfires pumps out more greenhouse & CO2 emissions than human manufacturing by a total of 3 to 1.
True climate change would have to come at the price of money making. I'm probably a pessimist here, but I can't see that paradigm of corporate greed shifting to environmental responsibility on a global scale my or my kid's lifetime.
Sorry, don't mean to nitpick, but you're not being told the whole story. It doesn't matter what % our output is, the real issue is that very soon we'll have to transition to an economy that uses less carbon. Let's not kid ourselves, this is going to happen whether we like it or not. And if we're not prepared it will be a very, very painful transition. However, if we are then the transition can be, not just painless, but profitable.
The world needs new forms of energy, and economic tools such as taxes, cap and trade, or other schemes incentivise the innovation. Whoever cracks the code that makes renewable energy the new standard will create for themselves (and whichever tax state they reside) the greatest fortune of the coming century.
The oil cities of Abu Dhabi and Dubai will sink back into the sand and whoever pushes innovation will create the new Silicon Valley. Just hope like fuck those holding the patents are your countrymen.
Unfortunately I don't think they will be ours.
Do you mean Australia is transitioning to greener energy whether we like it or not, or the world as a whole is going to? Because there's no evidence out there that world is keen to pursue future greener innovation at the expense of the now profits.
The world needs new energy. I just don't think it will happen while it's at the expense of corporation mega profits by way of taxing, limiting and (in the companies eyes) retarding immediate growth. They will want to maintain the course for as long as possible, and given there's more than a couple hundred years left of the old resources in the ground, thats why I said this change won't happen ours or our kid's lifetimes.
Companies have shareholders and stakeholders to keep happy with profit margins and percentages to uphold. Anything -- like R & D dollars -- compromising those profits will be canned, imo.
Agree with everything else. Green energy and innovation making it, is the future of the earth. Just not this coming century. It will be much later than that while money is ruling the world. Governments will continue to be bought and persuaded by the big corps to sit on their hands.
Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Climate Change in the Vortex of America’s Bi-Polar Politics
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2014/01/climate-change-in-the-vortex-of-americas-bi-polar-politics/
I understand the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and I wouldnt try to argue the point of CO2 being a contributor to global warming - all things being equal. And, yes I have heard of the Koch brothers and their scandalous dealings. That being said ill standby each of the points that I have made. There is as much money pushing mis-sinformation on both sides of the debate and there is as much unethical practice on both sides of the debate which is why I choose to sit on the fence comfortably in the knowledge that I am doing the best I can to live a life minimising my environmental impact and doing what I can to combat environmental issues that I think are important.
I am a supporter of the carbon tax, I think that companies should be made to pay for their pollution and probably at a higher rate than it has been. There has been some incredible developments in energy production that can be attributed in part to industry being steered toward cleaner alternatives. I live in Newcastle surrounded by coal mines and electricity generators, one of the largest, Bayswater, has developed one of the most efficient solar harvesting techniques available.
The downside as I see it is that it takes the burden of responsibility away from the individual - 'they'll fix it, we'll just have to pay a bit more' sort of attitude and as Braithy mentioned the reality is that there needs to be a change in the way, we, us, you and I consume.
I think the answer is closer to home. Have a look at the long term trends of the Aust Alps…
http://members.pcug.org.au/~terryg/Snowdepth.pdf
Fickle snow resorts that are way too close to the snow line. If the earth is warming, this will be one of the first places to show up.
What's clear to everyone is that that climate changes over time. We have ice ages. We have warm periods between them.
We are in a warm period now, and it's already lasted about as long as they ever do. More likely than not, the next major change is an ice age. The aboriginals came to Australia then, and the whole great barrier reef was dry land. Sea levels were about 80m below what they are now, and the coastline was totally different. This was not that long ago.
Even during warm periods the temperature is not static. There have warmer and cooler periods during his warm period. The most notable cold period in recent times is the little ice age. This was well documented; it is indisputable. This severe cold period - and the warming that followed, and the Minoan warm period, and other big changes in the Earth's temperature, are all real, and all happened before we started adding lots of CO2 to the air.
In other words, significant climate changes have happened in the past without any 'Anthropogenic' contribution.
There is absolutely no doubt that in the last hundred years the earth has warmed, there is a bit less ice, and the oceans have risen. That Global Warming (GW) has happened is indisputable.
What is not clear is this. How much of it is due to *man-made* CO2? And we really don't have any idea. We know that CO2 has gone up, and we know the world has warmed. But it has warmed - even more - without any man-made component. That we have an association at the moment is not proof that the man-made changes to the atmosphere are the cause of the temperature increase over the last 100 years or so.
The 'A' in AGW stands for Anthropogenic i.e. man-made.
Several posters here confuse GW with AGW. GW over the last 100 years is a fact. Despite the warming, there are no more cyclones or hurricanes or extreme weather events. This is now absolutely clear. GW does not increase the incident of extreme weather events. It just doesn't. There is NO evidence to supper that and in that regard all the fear that Al Gore promoted was just a pack of lies.
It's now known that for the last 15 years the warming has stopped, despite CO2 levels continuing to increase. If this flat global temperature situation continues much longer, nearly all of the AGW models will be 'proven' statistically to be wrong. A model that doesn't match reality is wrong. Already most models are highly marginal, causing the IPCC to revise down most of it's original forecasts.
As far as I can tell, the 'A' in AGW is what's suspect. There is very little good evidence that the warming is man-made. Yes, CO2 has gone up, and yes, it's got warmer, but that association is not proof of causation.
We will know in the next 10 - 20 years what the answer is.
If the stop in warming persists, or it gets colder and colder, despite CO2 continuing to increase, then the models were wrong, and all this stuff about CO2 was incorrect.
If this pause in warming disappears and we get back onto that rising temperature pattern again, then maybe we have more evidence for AGW.
I think it's true to say that if you look at the very long-term, like millions of years, you see that the world temperature is bistable. It can only get *so* cold - but when it does, the earth gets covered in ice, the ice reflects sun, the air is dry so IR radiation goes out easily, CO2 becomes more soluble in low temperatures, and we get an ice age. There is still heat and light from the sun, so there is a limit to how cold an ice age can be.
Something then tips us from an ice age into a warm period. No-one knows what causes this. It's not AGW that's for sure! Then we end up warm for a while. For reasons that again no-one knows, suddenly we get another ice age.
This cycle has gone on thousands of times.
There is some evidence that warm periods get warmer because the ice melts and less sunlight is reflected off land and water than ice. Also CO2 levels rise because the oceans warm up, releasing dissolved CO2, and because water vapour levels increase, meaning that atmospheric heat retention increases.
But why would a warm period end, if the only feedback was positive? Well, like ice ages, the earth can only get *so* warm, given its distance from the sun. The hotter it gets, the more it radiates away.
But why do warm periods end and ice ages start?
Some people think that the earth's surface warms, and as it does, the heat slowly creeps down through the rock, and the rock and crust of the earth expands, and then you get a massive volcanic crack in the earth, releasing masses of ash etc, and then the warmth of the sun can't get through for several years, causing more ice, starting the ice age, and then you end up in the 'stable' ice covered earth.
Some people think that ice ages end because the heat in the core finally gets through and melts the ice, and then the weather pattern toggles quickly from 'cold and covered in ice' to 'warm'.
All of this has happened lots of times, well before we increased CO2 levels by about ⅓.
In that context, what are we talking about? It's already been 2 degrees warmer and 2 degrees colder in the current warm period with 'constant' CO2 and zero Anthropogenic activity. It could be 12-14 degrees cooler if an ice age started.
I think everyone should take a deep breath and wait and see. If you personally take the time to read all the data and think that CO2 has an impact, well do what you can. But recognise that nothing we do will stop CO2 being released. Nothing except oil and coal becoming massively expensive. We all crave energy. People in cold places have central heating - people in hot places love air con. I love my car and the freedom it brings. I can't live without a fridge. Billions in China and India will soon have cars and fridges and aircon. Whatever I do personally the mass of humanity will decide what happens to CO2 levels.
Even if we cut our national CO2 emissions by ¼, something practically impossible unless we build about 10 nuclear power stations, all that means is that we will still emit the same amount of CO2 in 13 years as we would have in 10 years. If we cut by 50%, we'll still end up in the same situation - it will just take twice as long.
So in practical terms I see value only in not being wasteful with energy.
We should worry much more about plastic recycling, putting things in bins, cleaning up other people's rubbish as we walk down the street, picking up bits of plastic from beaches, re-using and repairing things, properly disposing of CFC's in fridges, thinking about what happens to the chemicals in old surfboards, and so on, than CO2.
Take it easy
C
ctzsnooze wow, a world record in unsupported generalisations, many of which are either completely incorrect or so broad as to be meaningless. To take the most obvious problem first you seem to ignore the simple physics of the greenhouse effect by denying the link between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature, oh and then you mention the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions without noting that when they occur on the scale of the Siberian Traps their heating effect can massively raise global temperatures......and so on and so forth. Fox News fan are you?
Climate change, influenced by man or natural, it really doesn't matter because climate change is a red herring in regards to threats on our planet and quality of life, the real issue should be
Well it does matter indo because, regardless of what we do now population will continue to rise for sometime yet exacerbating the risks of the planet reaching some kind of climate tipping point (if we haven't already done so). Limiting population is a great idea for creating a sustainable future, limiting greenhouse emissions is absolutely essential to a sustainable future.
At the height of the Global Warming fervour (now interestingly referred to more often as climate change) Australia and many other countries around the world slipped fracking through the legislature relatively un-noticed. The government is totally in the pockets of these companies, green lighting fracking with no risk assessment and ten years later this is what we get, foreign companies destroying Australian water supply, Australian land and Australian agriculture. Without water and food producing land we are screwed.
CSG enjoys a 'clean energy' label in the face of the CO2 scare and has had little resistance from the general public. This illustrates one of the problems with the climate change debate.
Nov last year I spent two weeks doing vegetation surveys in the pilliga region of Western NSW and there are wells going in everywhere, literally hundreds of them. Take the time to watch this report and judge for yourself. This isnt theory or conjecture, our vital resources are being destroyed in front of us.
&feature=youtube_gdata_playerSilicun, if ya think things are bad now, just wait until Abbott signs Australia's sovereignty away with the TPP.
TGF - sure the TPP will be a disaster IF it does get through and will quite possibly impact the fracking issue as well as a myriad of other aspects of our lives but fracking is going forward at a ridiculous rate atm, probably because the companies involved can see the backlash starting to happen and want to get in and established before any more regulations are put forward.
Significant, irreparable damage has already been done and if not dealt with soon the impacts will be devastating.
I cant really say im a fan of any of the political parties but Abbott really is a goose, he seems to be going from one blunder to the next. Ive just read that Indonesia are sending a frigate to patrol where Australian Navy has breached its sovereign waters. He doesnt seem to be able to respond to any of the current issues realistically.
with all of the biased scientists pulling down large amounts of cash grants, sucking on the government/taxpayer tit, as well as politicians themselves, Global warming/climate change is the scam that won't die.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/16/massive-fraud-at-the-epa-from-agen...
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2013/12/epa-climate-policy-expert-sente...
.....yeh all those scamming scientists who have spent most of their youth living on a pittance while they did their PhDs and who could at any moment earn five times as much sprouting bullshit for an oil or coal company "institute" . Better watch out for those bastards.
blindboy.
global warming is being pushed by governments in order to promote higher taxation and greater governmental controls of our lives.
as to those who FREELY CHOOSE to work for government instead of corporations...
"I’ve recently been made aware of a strange new tribe who refer to themselves collectively—they do everything collectively—as “progressives.” I think they used to call themselves “liberals” until it became clear that they don’t care much for liberty. Males and females in this tribe both tend to wear beards and gather in urban coastal areas, where they pay too much for apartments, water, coffee, and bean sprouts.
They speak a strange and exotic tongue unfamiliar to my ears. But they repeat certain terms so frequently, I feel as if I’ve begun to get a handle on what they’re driving at"....
CORPORATIONS—Malevolent yet generally non-coercive superorganisms that must be combated with a malevolent and entirely coercive superorganism known as government.
http://takimag.com/article/the_progressive_glossary_jim_goad/print#ixzz2...
@blindboy... you say I'm 'ignoring the simple physics of the greenhouse effect by denying the link between CO2 concentration and temperature'. OK. I'm a scientist and I have read nearly al the original papers on this area. I do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it causes warming. I pointed out that the increase in CO2 solubility in water when it cools (and the reverse when it warms) is the main reason why, in the past, CO2 levels have gone up whenever the earth warms, and goes down when it cools; the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and tends to cause warming is why there is positive feedback to increase temperature as the earth warms, and conversely to decrease temperature when it cools. In other words, CO2 levels associate with temperature change and magnify that change. So I definitely am not ignoring this.
But you need to be aware that there is very little consensus and absolutely no numerical certainty on the magnitude of the effect that increasing CO2 might have on global temperature. It could be large or it could be small. Most papers suggest that CO2 is actually a very poor greenhouse gas, that you could double CO2 in the atmosphere and cause very little increase in temperature.
Most of the earlier excitement about CO2 was generated by those nice graphs showing nearly perfect alignment of a graph of increasing CO2 vs a graph of increasing temperature. So everyone looked at that and thought, wow, that's why the temperatures are going up, it's due to CO2. That's what Al Gore and everyone said.
The problem is that this fundamental issue is by no means certain. Lots of fundamental physical research on CO2 absorption spectrums relative to the wavelength of back-radiated infra-red radiation suggest that the effect of CO2 may actually be trivial.
In science, an association doesn't mean causation. That the recent CO2 rise has associated very well with the recent temperature rise does not mean that the CO2 rise cause the temperature rise. In the last 15 years there has been NO significant temperature rise, but CO2 levels have gone up. This is not conjecture, you can look at all the base temperature graphs and this is simply true. Go read the basic physics. If CO2 was the cause, and the main cause, then the temperature should not have stabilised or levelled off, it should keep going up inexorably.
Most of the IPCC scientists are stumped by this problem. They blamed CO2, but their associations are now not holding up to what is actually happening.
Yes, I do question the significance of the 'A' in 'AGW'. My gut feeling based on the data I've seen is that if we double CO2 we will get a world that will be 0.5 C warmer than otherwise. That's a lower value than the IPCC but you should know that the IPCC have reduced their range markedly given recent data; my estimate is at the lower end of the range but I anticipate it will turn out to be true, and many other people in the field agree with me.
I think we will double CO2 in the next hundred years or so, then we will run out of coal and oil, and stop putting it in the air. It will then slowly dissolve out of the air into the oceans and CO2 levels will fall slowly. I also think that the global temperature will dither around under other non-CO2 influences to a far greater extent than currently predicted. The truth is that in the minoan warm period, where CO2 levels were lower than now, the world was 2 degrees warmer than now. Why? No-one knows, but it wasn't CO2. And during the recent little ice age of the Maunder minimum, it was 2 degrees cooler. Again this wasn't due to CO2, and no-one knows why it happens, though some blame sunspots. So if global temperature can go up and down by 2 degrees for reasons unrelated to CO2, how certain can we be that the 'up' of the last 100 years are due to CO2? We can't. That's the problem, it could be something else, and we just don't know.
Al Gore and the like have made a lot of money selling the idea that it is CO2. He is not a scientist. He will not want to get off the bandwagon. It's his livelihood. You do realise that his home generates something like 10 times the CO2 or my home? He doesn't, at a personal level, care - whereas I'm putting up solar panels and using LED lighting... go figure.
I'm definitely not making any unsupported generalisations. Every single statement I've made here is based on hard data.
Never watched Fox News, sorry, just read journal articles and cross-check their references.
Yep it's been getting warmer, yep CO2 is on the way up... so if global temp was a share market thing, would you buy in hoping to make money on it rising further? Sounds like you would. I wouldn't.
It will all pan out over the next 20-30 years. If solar cycles and other non-CO2 related drivers are the dominant factors, it will cool over the next 20-30 years, and warm again later. If CO2 dominates, then it will keep getting hotter.
At the moment, no-one really knows for sure what will happen. You and I disagree. You're out there with Al Gore and the IPCC, and I'm listening to the raw data that suggests that it ain't as simple as they thought. There is scientific data to support both points of view, though the more recent data supports my view more than yours.
The truth is out there but it will take a little more time and quite a lot more data, perhaps hundreds of years more, before we know for sure.
Oh and if I had to choose between a bit warmer and an ice age, I'd prefer a bit warmer. My house near the beach might go under water if it got warmer, but life would not change all that much. If there was an ice age, most of the northern USA would be under a 1-2 km thick sheet of ice, like last time. New York, Chicago etc and most of Canada would be obliterated. All the beaches would not exist as we know them, because the coastline would shift offshore by about 20-100 km. There would be significant global famine and life would be very different.
On the other hand, the harsh reality is that there is nothing that we can do about it. Nothing at all. If the ice age comes, we can't stop it. No matter what I do at a personal level, I can't stop all those people in China and India wanting more energy and making more CO2 than I can possibly cut back on. The only plus side is that their pollution might be reflecting incoming heat away... that seems to be true at the moment, having been to China several times recently the sky is never blue.
Most important thing is to recognise that all these things happen *relatively* slowly, like over hundreds of years, so while it might get a bit warmer or cooler during the lifetime of any individual person, it won't be enough to affect that person much at all.
That's why in practice I see very little point in worry about it. At a personal level I think it's good to not be wasteful so I turn the lights out and minimise my energy consumption via LED lights, using some solar panels, dressing warmly rather than using heaters in winter, planting deciduous shading trees and using external shutters to stop heat getting into the house rather than using air-conditioning. I assume you do the same? My goal is primarily to save money and keep the cost of energy for future generations down more than to reduce my CO2 footprint, because coal and oil are scarce resources that will become expensive in future if we waste them now.
The best argument for being energy miserly now is actually not to stop the coal and oil being burnt or to reduce atmospheric CO2, but to do our best to ensure that the future cost of coal and oil won't rise to levels at which our children can't afford the luxuries of cars and so on that we have now. Because that's what is obviously and certainly going to happen, whereas meaningful CO2-forced temperature rise is no where near as certain.
Cheers! off for a swim :-)
C
Aaa ah the grand conspiracy theory again. Shit if that's what the bloody climate scientists are up to you had better really start to worry about those physicists. Hand me my tin foil hat, fire up the orgone energiser. My god they're firing Higg's Bosons at us. Duck and cover!
I can accept that there is a very small chance that there is some significant factor that climate scientist's have over-looked in their predictions. Highly unlikely but not impossible, but a conspiracy? I don't think you have ever actually met a scientist if you can think that. Their business is to argue with each other. The way to get ahead in science is to prove your competitors are wrong. There is no political dimension to this other than that promoted by the denialists to protect their own financial interests by confounding the debate with bullshit.....exactly as they did with tobacco and, in many cases, using exactly the same agencies and methods. Be a sucker if you like. I remember all the men of my father's generation saying much the same about smoking and cancer. They were wrong, and paid the price. You are wrong and we will all pay the price if the kind of anti-intellectual swill you appear to have swallowed wins the debate.
Ctz the previous comment was posted simultaneously with yours and was aimed at the-roller. I will get back to your arguments.
ctz it would be great if you are right and that we experience only minimal warming before resources and technology move us on to non-carbon emitting sources of energy. At this stage of our understanding though, your opinion is far from being the dominant view and that means we should be exercising the precautionary principle and reducing our emissions as rapidly as can reasonably be done. I am not going to argue point by point unless you really want to but I am staying with the consensus opinion that the warming is caused by human activity and that it presents a significant on going risk. Waiting twenty years to see what happens seems a particularly foolish policy given the uncertainty, to which you admit.
Blindboy, the cosmos is a violent place. nothing new here.
global warming is a theory. and it is up to the theorists to prove their theory. and not at the expense of taxpayers footing the bill for their loads of bullshite.
That would be "theory" as in a well accepted scientific explanation for a large body of observations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Also the concept of proof is highly variable. If you want absolute proof then nothing is certain. The entire universe could have come into existence a moment ago complete with all our memories. What standard of proof do you want?
That's it in a nutshell. Unlike the religion debate, or who killed kennedy, there will be a finite answer to this one. Until then it's people going around in the same circles.
For the record ... I'm suspicious of anyone who says CO2 levels are a more pressing need then addressing sustainability and the exploding human population.
Humans can limit the gasses until they're blue in the face, and it could all be for naught because there's enough data and evidence to suggest CO2 levels aren't as damaging as first thought. If it was certain, debates like these wouldn't exist.
Then, if CO2 levels are more damaging to the atmosphere & earth, humans still make less greenhouse gasses than cows and bushfires. So we're headed in a negative direction regardless of what level of human intervention we undertake.
The population debate though... When the water dries up and the food disappears, we will die.
Hostile Environment: TPP Green Chapter “Virtually Meaningless”
Of the 12 countries negotiating a trade deal that would involve 40 per cent of the world’s GDP, only two — the United States and Australia — are objecting to an article dealing with climate change.
The climate change section as drafted would require countries to “acknowledge climate change as a global concern that requires collective action”, and to “agree to discuss” environmental and economic policies to mitigate its damage.
The leaked commentary indicates that, along with the United States, Australia says it “cannot agree with the [climate-change] Article as it is currently drafted”.
http://www.theglobalmail.org/blog/hostile-environment-tpp-green-chapter-virtually-meaningless/807/
braithy I think you are wrong in your claims about bushfire emissions and cows
http://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-bushfires-emit-more-carbon-than...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/methane-cow.htm
The public debate on this issue is occurring against a subtle campaign of disinformation and political pressure and if this forum is anything to go by they are working.
But that's just the debate isn't it. For every link you think is credible for your argument, I can post one too.
Like here: http://bushfirefront.com.au/impacts-of-bushfires/occasional-papers
... when it says, the Vicco fires in 2006 released 40 million tonnes of CO2 and this figure rises annually after the fire due to, "To this will be added the carbon released over time from the decay of fire-killed trees for the next 100 hundred years."
A few things jump out at me here.
1) From your article about bushfire emissions, they are using the Kyoto Protocol to measure the CO2 output, but:
"When it comes to bushfires and carbon accounting, the Kyoto Protocol is flawed. This is because CO2 emissions from uncontrolled bushfires are exempt from Kyoto accounting, while the emissions from prescribed burning are not. Under Kyoto “rules” a wildfire is considered to be a “natural” and unpreventable event like a volcano,; moreover, Kyoto is based on the concept that most fires around the world are grassfires or relatively low-intensity fires in savannah woodlands or open forests.
2) Measurements aside. The figure will rise over the next 100 years, so if the current totals are not even known, how can they be accurately measured?
... add to this, this 2006 fire was about 15% of the size of the Californian fires from 2013. (150 000ha @ kinglake compared to 600 000+ ha in Cali), and the 2013 fires in California were not as large as the 2009 fires in California again, or the colorado fires before that.
So, given the amount of CO2 produced by a fire is directly proportional to the total amount of fuel consumed in the fire. Given those facts, (the largest bushfire ever was over 3 million ha in Canada) ... the cumulative effect of all bushfires globally throughout history, and then their follow on effects which last more than a century after the fires. They actually do outweigh human emissions.
The second thing, it's estimated Australia's carbon tax will reduce the yearly CO2 emissions by around 25 million tonnes annually. ie around half the amount of the initial Kingslake bushfire emissions. So when scientists around the world canned Australia's carbon tax as nothing more than a tax, geared for making money, not environmental difference. Those scientists were right.
I won't even get into carbon leakage totals and numbers.
But the principle behind that is; in the absence of the entire earth going with greener energy, what ever carbon Australia reduces, the excess will be picked up in the USA and China, therefore the global emissions has not been altered at all.
I'm not for and against any tax or any environmental outcome. I don't bother worrying about when the world will end, because I might stop living in it until then.
I am interested though, in the human condition in any debate where we arm ourselves with our facts that support our beliefs and try and tell people who disagree they're wrong because they're listening to different facts from an opposing agenda.
Not sure what you mean by " using the Kyoto Protocol to measure the CO2 output". The data seems to have been calculated on the basis of the amount of fuel consumed. Even if there was some error in the calculation it would have to be huge to make much difference. And yes there are bigger fires elsewhere but unless you can come up with reliable global figures I will stand by my position that total global CO2 from wildfires is at least an order of magnitude less than human related emissions.
If forests did not regrow your argument about historical emissions might have some merit but forests do regrow and that process ultimately absorbs roughly the same amount of carbon as they emitted. It may take time and with increased fire frequency that lag might add to the atmospheric load but that is an argument for better management of forests not an argument against reducing human related emissions.
The argument about Australia's contribution being too small too count is basically unethical given our role at the top of the per capita emissions. If anything as a wealthy country with enormous alternative energy potential, we have a heightened responsibility.
It is a huge difference, which was my point.
The kyoto protocol measures all global CO2 emissions from Bushfires. But they run a sweeping generalisation over the fires, rather than a hard and fast, unique-to-each-fire statistical equation.
I guess my point was, how can we compare human emissions and bushfire emissions when we are only guessing what the bushfire emissions are?
This article addresses that also: http://bushfirefront.com.au/impacts-of-bushfires/occasional-papers
"If a tall forest regenerates following the fire, the carbon released by the fire will only be depleted for a hundred years or so. Unfortunately, the next 100 years is the very time in which computer models suggest maximum storage of terrestrial carbon is essential.
The worst possible outcome is repeated intense summer bushfires which not only kill the tall forest trees, but also sterilise the soil and incinerate soil-stored seed. By this means, a tall forest may eventually be converted to woodland and shrubland and the loss of stored carbon will be permanent."
I understand the per capita numbers aren't encouraging from Australia's emissions contributions. But that is a moral debate ... our relative production to the total emissions output of the world, is not a moral figure, it's a real one.
We attribute about 9% of the world's emissions, and with carbon leakage that 9% is simply distributed to other parts of the world. Therefore the total global emissions are not changed no matter what australia does.
Whether we like it or not, this is a global problem, requiring a global solution.
heh ... and even then, only if it is proven CO2 emissions are destructive, and the world right now isn't in the middle of some cyclic phase where we heat up, then ice-ages itself to cool down regardless of what human undertakings we make.
And with that heightened responsibility, successive Australian governments have missed key opportunities to retool and retrain large groups of skilled workers in that alternative energy potential.
Namely the closure of the Adelaide Mitsubishi car manufacturing plant in 2008 and the soon to close Holden plant.
Toyota is on the rocks too.
Governments will continue to turn a blind eye no matter what side of politics they're from.
They are there to keep their jobs for as long as possible. The longterm process, thoughts and costs to making an actual difference to greener technologies (or anything else which costs money) aren't conducive to 3 year terms where the focus is keep you job by not costing the people electing them money.
I remember reading a bit of a crackpot article a years back when I first started Uni.
It was saying the Australian government doesn't want greener energy like solar, and wind turbine or hydro ... People in theory, would then be able to become self-sufficient, therefore the government makes less money from people with less tariffs and taxes.
I think about that article more and more as our utilities go up and up, and the fact people in Qld -- if by law -- could disconnect from the grid, they would become solar sufficient with their energy needs.
Imagine paying 13k up front for your solar panels and batteries and being able to disconnect from the grid all together. The technology already exists and can be done.
I believe there would be no carbon footprint from the practice too.
But again, it gets back to money. Money the government wants to have.
I forgot about Toyota being another going down.
I agree with the other points you made about sustainable energies not being in the long term interests of politicians.
For instance, there is the Maxwell Whisson Air Well, a unit for extracting water from air. One of these shared between 3 or 4 properties would eliminate the need for scheme water when combined with rain water tanks. This country doesn't lack water, just water logic.
Then there was the scheme by a private firm to supply 45 gig of water to Perth from the Wellington Dam upon the scarp from Bunbury. The project would of cost $65 million to setup, and would have had a net gain in power generation too. But the govt of the day decided it was better to build two desalination plants for the princely sum of $1.8 billion.
Pollies = pigs in the trough.
earth to blindy,
Even the Euros have figured out that Al Gore and his highly hyped, and now discredited theory was bunk.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away...
the-roller the piece you have linked to does not appear to mention Gore or scam. It refers to a political process similar to our own in which governments are finding it convenient to wind back their climate change policies in part because of the disinformation campaign that has caused an unwarranted increase in public uncertainty about the issue.
After the last couple of 'conspiracy' posts, I'm reminded of something I read a while back on the methods by which Scientology discredits it's opponents.
L Ron Hubbard's 1948 book, 'Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health' and then the 1952 book, 'The Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics' also known as
'The Brainwashing Manual'. The Russian origin of the book was actually a deceit L Ron used to hide the fact that he authored the book himself.
The definition of Psychopolitics is this “The art and science of asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses, and the effecting of the conquest of enemy nations through ‘mental healing.’ ”
And to accomplish the above is a method called The Battle Tactics Doctrine.
1. Deception
Deception is for use on the “noncombatants” (the “Wogs” or “garden
variety humanoids”, in this case, the greenies, the left), and also for use on the diabolical conspiratorial “enemy.” It ranges from face to face lying,
exaggeration, evasion, manipulation, and emotional “button pushing,” to broadly distributed propaganda, and the use of “front groups,” and falls under
the category of general sneakiness. The point is not that one must use deception, but that it’s perfectly OK to do so, if it works.
2.Attack the attacker
What does it take to be regarded as an attacker? Per the doctrine, not very much. One should, “Treat all skirmishes like wars.” And never “assign mild motives to the enemy.” Don’t be “reasonable.” Be “ruthless.”
The tactics we see now being used by the corporatocracy, extreme right wing govt and the deniers are well entrenched in the methods L Ron brought to the fore for brainwashing his own followers into the subjection of Scientology.
The Asbestos, Tobacco, Chemical, Petro-Chemical, Media and big Pharma corporations have shown, both past and present that they are all well schooled in Battle Tactics to secure their own economic interests against the good of humanity and/or the preservation of earth as a habitable planet.
Firstly, Love the quote "Wherever you go, there you are" Made famous by Austin Powers
When I was reading your post I could see the psychology of how debaters behave and was agreeing with the tactics used as I have observed it, even in this forum. I don't know if you were just using examples, but I was surprised, as i see the other side of the debates also with it's"deceptions" use of front groups. More obviously, the "attack the attacker" strategy is most vicious for anyone who has a different opinion or hasn't enough information to make up their mind. The word denier comes to mind or "Do you watch Fox news or Alan Jones."
You have to love that tgf.
I agree BB that there can/will be positive outcomes from this arena, but we have to be careful to take into account the other problems we face - fukashima, GMO, fracking etc these may well turn out to be catastrophic and in the very near future.
less hype.
more logic.
Less hype....more logic!
I just did a quick google of Stefan Molyneux - Freedomain Radio, turns out he and his wife are not the doyens of logic and honesty after all.
In the past he was a champion of the 'thought experiment', looks like the experiment has taken over too many of his thoughts.
I dont think its helpful to start labelling people who disagree with the mainstream media message as tin foil hat wearers or idiots, there are plenty of well regarded and well qualified people on the other side of the debate. To dismiss an opposing view like this is simply being a denier/skeptic/conspiracy theorist in the same light. It cant all be miss-information in the same sense as there is much factual irrefutable information on the warming side of the debate.
Here is a bit about the guy who exposed the first big miss-information scandal involving the IPCC - http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/14/some-thoughts-on-disclosure-and-due-d...
Some info from an Australian Professor - http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and...
The dangers of overshadowing important environmental issues and the last 16years of cooling - http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-change-global-warming-and-the-big-f...
More cover-up and manipulation -http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-...
A couple of years ago I was firmly in the AGW camp and would rail against the foolish deniers but ive come to change my opinion, this doesnt mean Im some sort of nutter who doesnt understand the opinion/research/science that I read, I have an undergraduate degree in science (albeit sports science) and a strong interest in environmental issues.
I guess because for the last 20 yrs I've been working for the same big multi-nationals that rally against AGW, and have seen the dirty tactics and lengths they go to in discrediting anything that will affect their bottom line, my bullshit detector is fairly well tuned.
Plus, I, and many of my friends consider me a tin foil hatter anyway with some of the stuff I'm into.
Concerning the 16 years of cooling - control charts for that 16 yr period work perfectly when using 1998 as the base line, however if the base line is changed to 1997 or 1999 the outcome is not so rosy. That's the big issue with statistics and control charts, proving the solution is a doddle when the agenda is already decided before the the data is in.
CORPORATIONS—Malevolent yet generally non-coercive superorganisms that must be combated with a malevolent and entirely coercive superorganism known as government.
TGF would you call bullshit on the 16 year period of cooling?
Cherry pick, or not to cherry pick, that is the question.
If I treated say, gold recovery data the same way the skeptics treat temp data, I'd get the sack.
I should add, temp in nature is Uncontrolled Variation as opposed to an industrial process of Controlled Variation, that's why it's beneficial for skeptics to cherry pick sets of data on the timeline to "prove a solution". There are formula's for reaching the X-Bar and R-Bar of a set of data, basically the high and low points of expected deviation from the mean.
If the trend points go outside the high and/or low in an industrial setting, the process can be modified to bring the data set back to within the ranges set by the X & R bars. This can be run on a short or long term basis. Uncontrolled data such as nature throws out needs to be looked at in the longest time frame possible to get an accurate outcome - be aware that two points of data make a trend, which does not always make said trend an accurate representation of the big picture.
I understand the dirty tactics and the lengths people/organisations will got to in order to push an agenda, if you watched the CSG video I posted it outlines one of the worst scandals perpetrated on the Australian people in recent times involving multi-nationals, NGO's and government bodies/personelle. A good bullshit detecter will look at both sides of the argument, sift through the information and make a discerned decision based on what factual information surfaces.
An older piece that firmly rebuts the "16 years of cooling" argument
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-war...
Quote from ctz
"The truth is out there but it will take a little more time and quite a lot more data, perhaps hundreds of years more, before we know for sure."
This is a good fact, predicting weather a few days ahead is a relatively simple task, because such predictions primarily involve the atmosphere.
Predicting future climate is far more complex. Many additional factors must be taken into account.
Cheers BB, that seems to make sense. Not so much a cooling as a slowing of the warming, consistent with normal variation and possibly due to increased aerosols in the atmosphere and also action taken to combat warming. Would you agree with this paraphrase?
I'd be happy with that.
The use of cooling certainly hasnt helped in the general interpretation of the data. Here are two good articles that ive just read to understand better.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/09/ipcc-climate-change-report
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23014-what-leaked-ipcc-report-real...
The IPCC has consistently had to review its predictions which is understandable considering the nature of the beast and the sceptical side will use these as ammunition but it is a consideration when the predictions are influencing government policy - http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/9/prweb11092223.htm
Forget the sixteen years , we are only Ten maximum into a Negative ( cold ) dominated PDO cycle that should last 30 odd years . AGW is real , its just that it is not stronger than Natural forcings . If it was stronger then it would of overpowered the last 2010 -2011 La Nina period .
We have seen it increase heavily in the 30 odd years before that as it was a Positive ( warm ) PDO dominated era . This does control our weather and climate , as we were set for a El Nino this Austral summer , but teh PDO interupted quashed / diluted the Warm tongue of Eastern Pacific SST's that would have driven it . The atmosphere will now deliver an even stronger La NIna within the next two years ......
Anyway , its clear that models are wrong , and negative feed backs are well underestimated . Which has had Braithy & Tim Flannery in trouble as they have both now quoted that " the water will dissapear " ..........
Thats a impossibility , you cannot get rid of water . Its the only constant on this planet . It just changes state , ( Ice , water , vapour ) , it doesn't leave our atmosphere .....
And while I'm at it ......
" Major Victorian Bushfires
1851 - 6 February "Black Thursday" (5 million hectares)
1938-39 - December - January "Black Friday" (2 million hectares)
2003 - January - March "2003 Eastern Victorian alpine bushfires" (1.3 million hectares)
2006-07 - 1 December - 6 February "Eastern Victoria Great Divide bushfires" (1.2 -1.3 million hectares)
1944 - January - February (1 million hectares)
1983 - 16 February "Ash Wednesday" (510,000 hectares)
2009 - 7 February "Black Saturday" (450,000 hectares)
Gents , your wasting your breath .
Champion Energy Optimisation , and lets wait out this next 20 years .
No point re inventing the wheel until this " Theory is proven 100 % correct .... Then tear the place apart if I'm wrong .
For the record, I was referring to drinking water drying up.
Parts of africa & the middle east it's already happening. In the middle of the drought a few years, everyone in SE Qld got a feel for what running out of water feels like. And Australia is about to frack the shit out of water resources it does have. But that's another conversation.
Yeah the hectares burnt in fires number is a pretty complex one. Just about everywhere you look has a different number for total ha burnt in fires. The figures I got were from a uni paper I wrote about the Kingslake & Tasman peninsula fires.
Like right now, the current fire in the grampians, there's four different news sites reporting anywhere from 35 000 ha to 63 000ha burnt.
I found the more I researched the numbers for my paper, the more I found close to every single resource was different.
The canadian fire was measured in square kms burnt which equated to almost the size of australia minus Qld.
And for ash weds, I've never seen an academic journal have it over 200 000ha, and considering it was approx 20% larger than Black Saturday, you see the more you dig, the harder a concrete number to come up with is.
Which makes measuring their output in CO2 emission almost an impossibility, let alone comparing it fossil fuels emissions.
Fair enough braithy but since most fires are either started by human activity or made more intense by poor environmental management they really need to be considered as emissions. You might be interested in this example.
http://aeon.co/magazine/nature-and-cosmos/how-the-american-west-became-a...
Yeah it is super interesting to me, BB.
Tassie is pretty similar, minus the wolves of course. But the greens with their strict preservation have repelled preventative fire measures like prescribed burning as they "needlessly release CO2 into the air, and destroy our habitat" ... It's ironic huh?
I think the real tragedy in terms of fire in the Australian environment is that in most areas we lost the knowledge of the traditional owners that had successfully managed it for tens of thousands of years. I don't have a great deal of faith in either side in some of these debates since neither has the long term experience to really know the consequences of their actions......which sort of sums up most environmental debates, it is usually less a matter of who is right than who is slightly less wrong!
It reminds me of a joke.
When white fella found this land, black fellas were running it. No taxes, no debt, plenty kangaroo, plenty fish, women did all the work, medicine man free ... Aboriginal man spent all day hunting and fishing, all night having sex.
Only white fella bloody stupid enough to think he could improve a system like that!
I notice recently a push by the Aboriginal Sovereign Nation movement to try and gain some footing in land management issues which cant be a bad thing. Last year I picked up a copy of Jarrod Diamond's recent book "The World Until Tomorrow" which looks at how different types of society have operated and contrasts these with modern society. He puts forward several areas like this where practices from these societies could be adopted to improve the way we operate, well worth a read.
There is also this Letters Patent document from 1836 that came to light a ~10 years ago regarding Aboriginal Sovereignty in SA.
http://foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/sa2_doc_1836.pdf
The crux of the document being:
Provided Always that nothing in those our Letters Patent contained shall affect or be construed to affect the rights of any Aboriginal Natives of the said Province to the actual occupation or enjoyment in their own Persons or in the Persons of their Descendants of any Lands therein now actually occupied or enjoyed by such Natives.
These are interesting documents TGF, when you read sentiments like this its hard to understand how terra nullius got pushed through the British government in relation to Australia. Pollies/powers that be will find a way.
Edwin Wakefield and co. were given 56k pounds in conjunction with the Letters Patent to buy land from the Aboriginals, then went on to keep the money for themselves, ignore the LP and subsequently went on a killing spree.
Same story all over the country. I just sent a copy of Waterloo Creek by Roger Milliss to uplift. It deals with the massacres in NSW. It's out of print now but well worth a read if you can find a copy.
Baal Belbora is one of the books I was referring to BB, written by Geoffrey Blomfield. Id love to get a hold of Waterloo Creek
Wonder why we didnt learn this stuff in school ey? It breaks my heart to read these histories, we covered the pithiest garbage in history at school in a region with well documented and foul massacres perpetrated by squatters that were basically given the huge tracts of land that they still benefit from. Families involved were/are all still prominent in the area owning most of the big stations and most of the businesses. Meanwhile aboriginal families languish in the mission surrounded by the ill gotten gains and direct descendants of people that murdered their great grandparents.
True but as Kev Carmody pointed out
" Your history couldn't hide the genocide......"
....but Christopher Pyne and co are still prepared to try.
I recorded this with my band "Kilminister" a few years ago. You might still be able to get it on iTunes
Waterloo Creek
On Waterloo Creek I met an old fellow
The sun went down and the moon was yellow
He was very black and I was quite white
But we shared our food where we camped that night
On Waterloo Creek where the waters run down
On Waterloo Creek where the blacks were shot down
He sat me down by the fire so bright
Said that he really ought to put me right
That he was the son of a thousand generations
Of his people the Kamilaroi nations
He said I wear a black armband ‘cos I know the truth
About what happened in this nation’s youth
I wear a black armband and I wear it with pride
To pay my respects to those who have died
On Waterloo Creek and a hundred other places
Whites committed genocide on the native races
Of Murdering Station and Gravesend I speak
And the events that took place upon Myall Creek
Of treachery, rape and the great bushwhacks
When the stockmen hunted down and killed the local blacks
I’ll tell you the story of this very place
Where murder was committed against my own race
It happened long ago in 1838
But the truth is the truth and the truth will wait
Governor Richard Bourke left Snodgrass in command
He didn’t give a shit, he didn’t understand
When the squatters complained about the blacks spearing cattle
He sent the Mounted Police to fight a bloody battle
On the Liverpool Plains, the Kamilaroi nations
The whites stole land for their cattle stations
“The black man” Snodgrass said “must learn white man’s law
For every one of us they kill we will kill a score.”
Called up that brave man, Major James Nunn
Said “Take your Mounted Police and get the job done.”
In 1838 on New Year’s Day
With a party of thirty they set out on their way
They left the place they’d spent the night, the town of Invermein
Headed straight north to the Liverpool Plain
From station to station they wandered for weeks
They terrified the local blacks and drove them from the creeks
Shot one in the back as he ran away
Though what wrong he had done no-one could quite say
The Kamilaroi nations, the owners of the land
The whites had no right, you have to understand
Well they heard about two killings that the blacks had done
Though they were just revenge for other murders done
They found them all camped on the banks of a lagoon
Named after Snodgrass, that idle buffoon
Oh brave trooper with your horse and your gun
Shooting them down before they could run
Shooting them as they climbed the trees
And leaving their bodies to rot in the breeze
There were women and children but they didn’t care
They shot them in the back or grabbed them by the hair
Disembowelled the mother, crushed the babies head
And when they were finished there were two hundred dead
On Waterloo Creek where the massacre was done
Two hundred bodies rotting in the sun
Australia Day in Sydney was a great celebration
Fifty years since the European invasion
But things were rather different on Waterloo Creek
Of the atrocities there, a man can hardly speak
Brave Major Nunn kept well to the rear
Safe from the flight of any black man’s spear
He wrote a report full of gaps and lies
That new Governor Gipps soon would recognise
So all you people who love this land today
Please spare a thought for what he had to say
Take off your white blindfold and you just might see
The plain truth about our history
On Waterloo Creek and a hundred other places
Whites committed genocide on the native races
Wow, thats powerful writing BB!!
As "The plain truth about our history" always is.
There are many Aboriginal freedom fighters white history wants us to forget.
Bulmurn
Yagan
Tjandamurra
Pemulwuy
Tunnerminnerwait
Maulboyheenner
Pyterruner
Truganini
Planobeena....the list goes on.
Thats a great point TGF, the untold story of the resistance. Im pretty new here and I just searched the forums for threads touching on aboriginal issues, of which there are quite a few. The level of discussion and understanding is quite refreshing as Ive found with most discussions on Swellnet. I was thinking rather than continue to hijack this thread and in the light of upcoming Australia Day one of you guys with a bit of knowledge and writing prowess could cobble together a piece reviewing some of these idea's in the light of the celebration??
I was thinking the same about no longer going OT in this thread.
I'll leave you with this link, there are other sources of info but this is a start.
http://treatyrepublic.net/
The New Scientist article briefly mentions the influence of solar cycles on climate which I have read bits and pieces about in the last few months. It seems like a fairly new field of study but there is no doubt the influence of many factors including the earths magnetic field, solar cycles, sun spot activity etc. If Anyone can provide some worthwhile reading or input Id appreciate it.
A cool Southy has come through, thank f#@k for that, the heat has been blistering. I agree you with you on some aspects - energy optimisation, stop wasting our breaths, not reinventing the wheel - all good advice for me. The rest ill mull over.
Silicun .
If its shear Solar stuff your after there is Some Seriously boring heavy reading here
" http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1036483/Solar_Watc... "
And if you have Google Scholar . type in Milankovic cycles , Saros cycles .......
it will work on normal Google , just less info .
Solar winds are another influence barely understood , of which are controlled by the Solar Cycles . The Oceanic - Atmosphere couplings of the PDO , AAO , SAM , etc etc are also better for whats happening to the water cycle ....
You know , actual things within our realm that we can control .... This coupling of the Atmosphere to Oceanic is far better understood , but still far from being mastered .... All of this Chaos theory , ( Well atleast it appears to be for now ) , and AGW theory is a needle in a haystack .
We're all randomly getting pricked , as they fumble around looking for it ....
Southey are you referring to the the oceanic circulation.
The Great Ocean Conveyor Belt ?
Thanks for the info, and the heads up on google scholar, i hadn't heard of it. Looks like I got some reading ahead of me. Cheers again :)
welly , that is the name referred to the Thermal mixing that occurs in the Ocean . It is understood in that they know the average path of its great interlinked Gyre . Its the variations in it , the changes of speed and anomalies that aren't understood . The main area we look at is the top layer which is easily measured by satellite . And this most importantly is where the interactions with the atmosphere happen obviously .
The depths , and Atmospheric forces back on the subsurface and seasonal anomalies along with cyclic events that drive the climate in various zones wetter , colder , hotter and drier .... its extremely complex , subtle and hard to monitor . hence they are struggling with modelling it .
Just to throw more conjecture as to what is happening, or might be happening to Earth's climate.
Scientists baffled as Sun activity falls to century low.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806
Super interesting read. It just highlights how little we know about cause & effect in our earth, our atmosphere and our solar system.
How's this line:
I remember after breaking my back in 1998 they told me there would be a 95% chance I'd never swim, surf or run at full pace again. I've since done all of that and played another 7 seasons of rugby league.
So while there is any kind of uncertainty from the experts -- even as little as 5% -- debates like the one we've just had will always be apposite.
Thanks to all the learned contributors who have taken the time to research and summarise the issues. It was refreshing to read reasonable discussions without the usual twisted logic and personal attacks like saying you don't love your children if you don't believe in global warming( with very few exceptions) This calm, informed response would be very helpful to the world debate rather than what I find at the BBQ debate which tends to stick to political sides and is close minded to an alternate to the majority view.
Of course climate change is only one problem arising from our dependency on fossil fuels.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jan/17/peak-oi...
the doomsayers of "Peak Oil" are as bad as the doom mongers of man-made global warming.
it is always exciting to think that we live in special times and face insurmountable challenges but the fact is it is all bull.
there simply is NO shortage of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future (at least 600 years and probably much more).
fact. logic. emotion. exaggeration....
ideology. another form of bias that can BLIND one to reality.
even though the theory of peak oil has been debunked, we still have to put up with annoying alarmists... helping to make astrologists look credible.
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/
ROFLOL at the troller saying other people are ideologues.
the truth? ...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tgi0Uto2If8/TmzZOQwHWgI/AAAAAAAAPtE/T0p8VqRXZA...
clearly, it is at the end of the drill bit.
Drill baby, drill. invent baby, invent.
If this boob had the slightest understanding of so-called climate change he’d never have been dumb enough to wander unprepared into the Antarctic ice.
And they don’t even mention his worldwide humiliation. Unreal.
http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/news-academy-awards-unsw-scientists
For those who believe Northern winter storms + southern heat are linked to climate change, I suggest you google Chandlers wobble.
Apparently it has been significantly pronounced the last few years.
When this happens the earth suffers from an increase in earthquakes, severe storms and temperature changes.
Sound familiar.
Have not been able to find out if makes the waves better or worse tho'.
http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/2013-was-worlds-fourth-warmest-year--and-australias-hottest--on-record,6091
http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/only-1-of-9136-recent-peer-reviewed-authors-rejects-global-warming,6094
after he pulled down an Academy Award, and tens of millions of dollars,.... flip-floppper ALGore OKs EU dumping renewable energy mandate. A year ago, Gore called for 100% renewables in US by 2018.
http://ruptly.tv/site/vod/view/8505/switzerland-al-gore-praises-eu-clima...