Net Greenhouse Gas Emission
This graph, taken from No Right Turn, nicely shows how hollowHelen Clark’s rhetoric of carbon neutrality is.
The situation is even worse than the graph shows. John Howard gets pilloried for not ratifying Kyoto, but even if he had, their target was an increase of no more than 8% from 1990. They have actually achieved their target. Our target was a 0% increase and we are at over 20%. NZ not Australia deserves to be the target of attacks of climate change activists.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: International Politics
September 6th, 2007 at 8:33 am
That shows growthm but from what level?
September 6th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Oh, here we go!
September 6th, 2007 at 8:44 am
20% is good, but lets aim for 100%.
CO2 is a fertiliser. It help plants grow.
Climate change activists need to read http://www.climatepolice.org
September 6th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Australia has the highest level of emissions (27.54 CO2e t/person)
The US is next (24.09 CO2e t/person)
UK is pretty low (11.01 CO2e t/person
NZ just above UK (14.43 CO2e t/person)
http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/country_emissions.php
As I said there is no point looking at rates of growth unless you know the base figure they are growing from.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Dare I say, Climate Change Deniers just need to read.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:56 am
They also need to work on how to provide a working link. Or perhaps Ross will deny there is anything wrong with his link, and if it is not working that is caused it is an entirely natural process to do with sunspots?
September 6th, 2007 at 8:57 am
These results remind me of the oil shocks way back when New Zealand was one of the only (if not the only) westernised country(ies) at the time that increased energy consumption.
Also reminds me of a discussion with a Treasury chap who believed we could handle an increase of energy prices of over 200% without it causing a change in behaviour nor that turning off computers and other electrical appliances at the end of the day would not be beneficial to the overall position in New Zealand in the sense this would only reduce overall consumption in the 1% – 2% range, he did not look at the cumulative benefit this could bring.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Did anyone count the emissions from bushfires in Australia. Driving hundreds of kilometres beside one on July put into perspective for me in my little car just how silly Co2 emission controls are.
there was the forest burning and casting a pall of smoke for hundreds of miles and I’m supposed to feel guilty about the exhaust of my car!!!
I’m with Ross, given that CO2 is a miniscule amount of the worlds atmosphere we shoudl be trying to increase it.
For me emissions calculations are like cricket scores, the higher the better.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:08 am
I thank Helen for letting this happen.
The alternative is that she put in place the drastic measures that would have been required to keep that blue line near Australia’s. Almost all the benefits of her wrecking the NZ economy would have been enjoyed by foreigners, who might possibly say ‘thanks’ but that’s about it.
So thank you Helen doing so little about carbon emissions.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:21 am
“I’m with Ross, given that CO2 is a miniscule amount of the worlds atmosphere we shoudl be trying to increase it.”
Yes, lets look forward to the happy day it makes up 100% of the atmosphere. Breathing may be a little difficult but at least we will have showed the lefties who is in charge eh?
September 6th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I’m just happy Howard and Bush have finally started talking about climate change as being real, cos it wasn’t that long ago that they were pretending it wasn’t going to be a problem.
Likewise our beloved National party:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0611/S00487.htm
September 6th, 2007 at 9:23 am
China is reportedly the world’s worst polluter and, on top of that, their use of energy resources is among the least efficient. So where is New Zealand’s integrity or morality in selling coal to them? A lot of this is just plain bullshit.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:26 am
um, the graph shows no growth, or slight decrease, in nz emissions between 2001 and 2005, while aussie emissions rose.
New Zealand’s performance is not good enough but it faces a tougher task than other developed countries. Half our emissions are from agriculture. Whereas the UK has shut down old power plants and built more efficent factories, any growth in stock numbers here, ie sector growth, results in an increase in emissions – decreasing emissions intensity in agriculture is proving very difficult, cutting emissions requires fewer animals.
you also have a measuring problem, although in face agriculture is becoming less emissions intense now, the assumptions on emissions per head of stock, set down by Kyoto, remains the same for the purposes of these calculations.
Btw, that late 1990s dip is from the recession caused by the Asian Crisis.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Can anyone explain t me what Helen and co proposed to do about emmissions and what has been doen? Ta
September 6th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Whaleoil – arrogance is bliss, eh?
the concern is over man-made emissions unbalancing the nautral carbon cycle by putting more CO2 and other GHGs into the atomsphere.. Bushfires are a natural part of the carbon cycle (even if some particular fires are human-ignited the bush would have burnt eventually) and the CO2 put into he atomsphere by them is naturally absorbed by other mechanisms. The problem is we’ve put so much CO2 into the air those natural absorbtion methods are overwhelmed and atomspheric concerntrations rise (and CO2 in the atomsphere traps heat).
September 6th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Of course we have the wonderful situation where the govt decided it was going to help promote solar hot water in NZ.
This is an industry which has been growing at 40% per year for many years now.
Janette steps in, says some VERY ignorant and damaging statements, and the industry takes a nose dive. Actually less installs this year than last year.
With friends like that, who needs enemies!
Couldn’t organize a piss up in a brewery!
(This is the short version of a very long story).
September 6th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Actually Sonic let’s reduce it to zero and see how much breathing you are doing then.
And NZ signed up to Kyoto with Labour crowing about how much money they were going to make.
Another billion dollar blunder by the Labour party. Bloody morons and you support them.
Also Kyoto was all about targets set at 1990 levels and Labour signed up to them so you can’t complain that those targets are now meaningless can you. Unless you saying we should pull out of the Kyoto protocol do you?
Or are you being the usual toll that you are?
September 6th, 2007 at 9:50 am
“Actually Sonic let’s reduce it to zero and see how much breathing you are doing then.”
I’d be fine thanks, although the garden plants might get a bit peaky.
Science not your strong point eh Mark?
If I was you I’d leave this discussion to people who actually have a clue.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Sonic Wrote:
As I said there is no point looking at rates of growth unless you know the base figure they are growing from.
1990 is the base year for the kyoto protocol and what I think David is trying to say is that if Australia had ratified Kyoto,and had enacted the same policies that NZ politicians pour scorn over , they would have still done a better job than NZ at meeting commitments.
ie: We in glass houses should not throw bricks
September 6th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Sonic: the graph shows growth in net CO2-equivalent emissions since 1990 (in other words, “what matters under Kyoto”). Per-capita emissions are irrelevant from a Kyoto perspective – what matters is national aggregate emissions. Though its also worth noting that our “progress” on that front has been in one direction – up – despite a growing population.
And while DPF is focusing on Labour, there is plenty of blame to go around here. Getting us to this dismal stage has required seventeen years of sustained inaction, under governments from both parties. Both parties have delayed and equivocated, both parties have proposed bold policies (carbon taxes, even) and then failed to deliver, and both parties have failed to implement any interim policy to at least limit emissions in a rough and ready way while waiting for their perfect emissions trading scheme to finally be implemented. And its that sustained inaction that will cost us ~$545 million (and probably twice that).
Both parties apparently agree on the need for action. What I’d like to see now is for them to work together on implementing a solution so that we don’t end up paying another billion dollars in CP2, rather than trying to trade blame and fling shit at each other.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:05 am
anonymouse: think David is trying to say is that if Australia had ratified Kyoto,and had enacted the same policies that NZ politicians pour scorn over , they would have still done a better job than NZ at meeting commitments.
Basically, yes.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Lance, can you explain in more detail?
“Janette steps in, says some VERY ignorant and damaging statements, and the industry takes a nose dive. Actually less installs this year than last year.”
September 6th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Don’t blame the Aussies they’re trying to catch up, been a cold winter there.
And now the sea level rise is not going to be 80 metres but maybe around 80 cm over 100 years, it’s time put a turbo on the diesel and see if I can’t help.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Sorry for giving the wrong link near top of thread.
Should have been http://www.climatepolice.com
And I see pseudoscience being promoted above, so lets set that right.
An increase in temperature causes CO2 to increase, not the reverse (and there is about an 800 year lag).
You could double CO2 from 300 to 600ppm and not notice any perceptible temperature increase. The only rapid increase is from 0 to 150ppm, then the graph starts flattening out.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:41 am
So David’s point is that Australia emits 52% more CO2 per person than NZ, but New Zealand “deserves to be the target of attacks of climate change activists.”
Hmm, very convincing.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Ross is right, pay no attention to this
http://www.ablemesh.co.uk/Images/co22tempgraph.jpg
September 6th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Hi Peter
To roughly paraphrase…
Janette makes sweeping public statements that solar hot water costs too much, takes 15-20 years for payback etc.
Then EECA changes the (very small) subsidy from $300 to $500 but now all systems have to be approved.
Trouble is, only 5 have been approved and the overwhelming criteria is cheapest is best. E.g. most controllers do not meet New Zealand standards (NZS2712) or New Zealand law ( Ctick and associated electrical safety declarations).
Most major players, with a vast amount of experience, shake their head and say it is just ridiculous trying to install a high quality plumbing installation, involving unusually high water temperatures and pressures at a typical $2500 target. By comparison a decent gas fire cost $6000!!!!
I know some solar craftsmen are confiding in me they intend to chuck in solar and go back to plumbing, much easier money and way less BS. This would be disaster upon disaster for the industry.
There is deep seated anger in most of the solar hot water industry at what they see as damaging, denigrating and unhelpful comments from the top. Things would have been MUCH better if the govt had just stopped making unhelpful comments and worked with the new standards to mandate improved installation techniques.
Sure there are some crap installs but these are the minority and the industry is moving to mandate acceptable practices.
The technology though is sound, payback is way better than 15 years (my personal evidence suggest 7 years typ).
So the solar hot water industry is in serious decline, CO2 emissions are up…
SNAFU
September 6th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Australia has the highest level of emissions (27.54 CO2e t/person)
Per person. Who gives a damn about per person?? You socialists always find a way to manipulate data to serve your proaganda. Your pronouncements can never be trusted or taken at face value.
China emits more CO2 than any other country, but you wouldn’t want to announce that and embarass or offend your (and Helen Klark’s) Chicom general mates would you Sonic? Where are the protests against China? Funny that ain’t it?
(Not if you know what’s really going on in the halls of the leftist power seekers)
September 6th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Thanks Lance. Very interesting!
September 6th, 2007 at 10:55 am
The carbonplanet figure for NZ CO2 equivalent emissions quoted by Sonic is unsourced and wrong. Most sources e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita or http://tinyurl.com/32vhdc put the figure for 2000 at around 19 tonnes per capita.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Dead Duck Dux said…
Dare I say, Climate Change Deniers just need to read…
I would also add that those global warming suckers who believe in the climate porn industry, need to listen. I had put a direct challenge to the climate porn center RealClimate, by posting some topics in climate modeling I thought that it would be interesting for debate, but they selectively published some and rejected others.
Now, I have posted my rejected messages from climate porn center RealClimate at the Skeptic site, Climate Audit. My message numbers at Climate Audit are : #58, #64, #69 , #70 and #72. The members of the climate porn center , RealClimate , just refused to debate with the man from the island. I thought that they ‘re (RealClimate) all top notch climate scientists.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Yeah, Australia is coal country and will be until nuc power becomes competitive, they have plans for around 25 generating reactors over 30-50 years.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:00 am
“Actually Sonic let’s reduce it to zero and see how much breathing you are doing then.”
I’d be fine thanks, although the garden plants might get a bit peaky.
Um Sonic, thats the point – if the planets plants do not get the CO2, then they cannot make O2 for you to breathe.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Sonic said…
Ross is right, pay no attention to this :
Sonic, I know that you are subscribed to the belief of those in the climate porn industry, aren’t you? Are you still bringing up the broken hockey stick graph?
September 6th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Well Sonic if there is no CO2 all the plants will die, then what will be producing the oxygen you are breathing.
God you are a dumbass!
September 6th, 2007 at 11:12 am
“The climate porn industry”
What a terrible piece of spin. Did you make that up yourself?
Bevan, I don’t think there is much chance of us getting to zero carbon dixoide or that anyone wants to. When I mentioned 100% Co2 I was just pointing to the logical conclusion of Mr Oil’s “For me emissions calculations are like cricket scores, the higher the better.”
September 6th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Can anyone explain to me what Helen and co proposed to do about emissions and what has been done? Ta
I wasn’t been sarcastic, I really want to know!
September 6th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Good news!
2007 is likely to be marked as the year that the Climate warming hoax started to die.
http://www.chronwatch-america.com/articles/1479/1/The-Year-the-Global-Warming-Hoax-Died/Page1.html
September 6th, 2007 at 11:17 am
sorry, ‘being’
September 6th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Sonic said…
What a terrible piece of spin. Did you make that up yourself?
No, it was a term that I read on the internet to label those who believe in AGW.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I must say Falafula labelling the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists “pornographers” rather shows how depply unserious your side is.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Mark – of course some CO2 is natural and necessary, its the level not the presence at all that’s the problem.
Ross Nixon – yeah all that pseudoscience, like what the IPCC puts out, eh? hmm who to believe, some cranks or the largest assemlby of scientists ever? or btter yet, my own scientific understanding (after all the basic mechanism – more heat-trapping gases, hotter earth – isn’t hard)
LeeC – we’re not your news service… the largest collection of data ever assembled is at your fingertips, inform yourself.. i’ll throw you a bone.. try beehive.govt.nz, portfolio climate change
September 6th, 2007 at 11:48 am
LeeC: Start here (which explains how much both parties agree on climate change policy), and then follow the links for the details. I’ve been following the cabinet papers and discussion documents in this area closely for some time.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:58 am
…just refused to debate with the man from the island.
Are you playing the race card Falafulu?
September 6th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Sam – most scientists don’t subscribe to the global warming hoax http://tinyurl.com/2f8qxr
And who would believe a small numbers of hand-picked UN sponsored scientists -they only have about 10 PhD meteorologists on their side, BTW.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I must say Falafula labelling the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists “pornographers” rather shows how depply unserious your side is.
There are warming skeptics who misappropriate words like pornographer, just as there are warmists who use silly words too. It proves nothing. There are also serious climate scientists who are skeptics.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Ross has 6% of the worlds scientists on his side.
Who could argue with that!
Ben, I don’t think it does prove anything much. However the hysteria of those who disagree with the idea of global warning is getting stronger all of the time.
Using the word pornographer is just another example of that.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Ross, I see you forgot to quote a source of your story I help out
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/policy/pt_skeptics.html
September 6th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Speaking of consensus.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html
It’s prolly a right wing polluter think tank.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Ah lord Monkton rears his ugly head again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Walter_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Business_consultancy
September 6th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Ben said…
Are you playing the race card Falafulu?
Nope! I mentioned it just for humor. The climate scientists at RealClimate don’t even know whether Falafulu Fisi is a Russian name or not, so my previous message is got nothing to do with race. Members of RealClimate website, just rejected my message because I posted a topic for a debate (ie, climate sensitivity) over there and they rejected the post. I think that their top dog climate scientist Prof. Gavin Schmidt of NASA, realised that I (Falafulu Fisi) had challenged him on an assertion that he made on this thread. Read message #102, in which I first brought up over at RealClimate where I said that Prof. Gavin Schmidt doesn’t seem to know of what he was talking about (related to climate sensitivity) on that main article (Gavin authored it) of that thread. Here was the dialog on that thread if you don’t want to go there and read it. I have continually challenged Gavin on his assertion (see below) he made in his article by posting messages at RealClimate by saying that I still waiting, but to no reply. In fact most of my messages requesting that he replied had been deleted over there at RealClimate. AR stands for auto-regression in my dialogue with Prof. Gavin Schmidt which is shown below:
==== Dialogue between Falafulu and Prof. Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate ====
Prof. Gavin Schmidt said…
firstly, that modelling the climate as an AR(1) process with a single timescale is an over-simplification;
Falafulu Fisi said…
Now, if is not AR(1), then what order of the transfer function would be the right order?
The fact of the matter is that you either predetermined the order to be able to build a model or otherwise used System Identification algorithms (linear or non-linear) to identify the best model orders for you if you have no clue to what order that would best model the system.
Here are some points:
If you think that AR(1) is over-simplification, then you must accept that you have a full prior knowledge of the dynamics of the systems. However, in reality this in not the case. On the other hand, if you accept the you don’t know a lot about the dynamics of the system, then you must accept that AR(1) is NOT an over-simplification.
BTW, does any member of the RealClimate has any knowledge about linear and non-linear System Identification & State-Space algorithms? The reason, I am asking here, is that it seems that you have no clue to the question that you have just asked, and that is : whether AR(1) is an over-simplification or not?. You can pretty much fit any AR model to any data, however the AR model with minimum error could be identified via AIC (akaike information criteria). So, the point of saying whether a AR model of order 1 is an over-simplification sounds like someone who makes a comment about something that he/she has no clue about.
Prof. Gavin Schmidt responded…
[ AR(1) processes have certain properties. You can examine the data, in particular the auto-correlation structure as in Schwatrz’s paper, and examine whether those properties are found. In this case, they are not. Pretty good evidence that you are not dealing with a simple AR(1) process with a single timescale, therefore AR(1) is an over simplification. We’ll put up more details on this soon. - gavin]
September 6th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Here’s a site that’s worth a read, http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
September 6th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Sonic, did you read the PDF that was posted by Lord Monkton at the link posted by Tina? You didn’t seem to. This is why I think that you have subscribed into the climate porn industry, since you don’t read the message but you tried to attack the messenger.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Sorry to see you’re not getting a lot of co-operation at realclimate Falafulu, at least Gavin indicates that there will be future opportunities to discuss it, suggest you stay civil
September 6th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Thanks IdiotSavant for the info and thanks too, Sam for the ‘bone’. I’ll peruse these later at my leisure…. did you get the flowers?
September 6th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
The “theory” of Global Warming. How true is it actually?
Refer to this Skeptics guide produced by the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works .
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e
This is a document with some actual facts not leftie twisted assumptions.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
For a new peer-reviewed study of the Heat Capacity of the earth, see the link inside this article http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253
It’s a 546KB PDF file.
The conclusion is that we are spending TRILLIONS of dollars in an attempt to prevent a 1.0 degree temperature rise by the year 2100.
(I can think of better uses for the money, can’t you?)
September 6th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
I knew it had to be a right wing polluter think tank…now Wiki confirms it.
A little good news amongst the rampant warming.
But it’s not consensus, so it’s prolly wrong.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6134
September 6th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
The “climate porn industry”, it bespeaks a truth.
And so it shall be from this time on…..
The AGPorners have arrived.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I am a little disappointed, though, usually, some bloggers need little prompting to proclaim the wonderful achievements of the Labour Party, yet in response to a simple question:
“Can anyone explain to me what Helen and co proposed to do about emissions and what has been done?” There has been a curious silence.
Tumbleweed, in fact…
Come on, you can admit it! You don’t actually have an answer, do you?!?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Errr…she’s contracted to pay money to Russia as penance for NZds carbon sins.
Does that count?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Is there any shortage of wacky extreme right-wing american websites that think they know more that all of the top climate scientists in the world.
Sadly no.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I’m probably going to regret this.. sigh..
Ross
Using terms out of context is piss poor science. Mocking even a 1 degC rise as insignificant because it sounds insignificant is a poor way to make a point.
We live in an immensely high energy bombarded planet, at ground level, in NZ, sunshine at midday radiates around 1800 watts per sq metre. The earth has, over a long period of time stabilized this system. Even a tiny change to that balance could be very dangerous. IMHO.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Andrew W said…
Sorry to see you’re not getting a lot of co-operation at realclimate Falafulu,
But I don’t go to RealClimate website to seek co-operation. I go there to debate science on things that I see as misleading assertions or inappropriate use of a specific algorithms.
Andrew W said…
at least Gavin indicates that there will be future opportunities to discuss it, suggest you stay civil
Yes, it has now taken almost a whole week for Gavin to reply. He is either hurry doing some reading on my tip, ie, on System Identification algorithms to be able to get a reply to me or otherwise he is just simply forgot about it deliberately. I seriously doubt if one member of the RealClimate group knows anything about System Identification & Feedback Control Theory. The debate about climate sensitivity is something that could be solved using those 2 theories. Just remember, that System Identification & Control Theory were existed in the 1950s way before climate scientists started using them in the 1980s. I am awaiting Gavin’s response, he either demolish the well established theory of System Identification & Feedback Control Theory when he replies to me or otherwise he must admit that what he quoted, ie , modelling the climate as an AR(1) process with a single timescale is an over-simplification, by Dr. Schwartz’s work on sensitivity, is a misleading statement. I don’t think that Gavin that he is stepping into a field (System Identification & Feedback Control Theory) that he has no expertise on.
BTW, why do you think that my post (see below) at RealClimate was deleted? It is rude or has it got any personal attack in it? Could you please help me out here Andrew? I think that my message is one that is related to climate science, don’t you think? If you think yes, then why it was deleted?
—– deleted message at RealClimate —–
Timothy Chase, here is another useful paper for introduction to System Identification , which is a sub-domain of feedback control theory. I have emailed you the list of books on feedback Control theory and System Identification (both linear & non-linear books).
“GREENHOUSE CLIMATE MODELS: AN OVERVIEW”
http://www.date.hu/efita2003/centre/pdf/103.pdf
Why I think that this paper is important for introduction, is to get a preliminary idea since it is relevant to sensitivity debate. When Gavin Schmidt posts his article of why he thinks that AR(1) is an over-simplification in Schwartz’s sensitivity analysis, System Identification methodology could be applied here.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Lance…ummm….you don’t need to IMHO that…virtually the entire scientific community agrees with your point. It’s just, as Sonic noted, a bunch of whacky lobby groups and industrial interests who are throwing up dust to try and obscure the science. The Intergovernment Panel and Climate Change was fairly definitive in its findings. But of course, what does a huge scientific and political consensus know? Hell, Ann Coulter’s talking points are probably a far more reliable basis for public policy. Sheesh, science, what’s science ever given us? Besides, half the monkeys who like to cast doubt on climate change also believe the fairy story that at a rapturous moment in the near future they will be stolen away to paradise by their invisible friend – regardless of how fucked this planet is. You’ve got to wonder about the depth of their committment to avoiding long term environmental damage when they’re pretty much just biding their time before they get a free pass off this planet.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
A typo mistake from my last post:
I don’t think that Gavin that he is stepping into a field (System Identification & Feedback Control Theory) that he has no expertise on.
should read:
I think that Gavin is stepping into a field (System Identification & Feedback Control Theory) that he has no expertise on.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
These are some more right wing scientists not part of the consensus, most in the pay of big business I’d wager.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm
This website is frequented by polluters I think.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Lee C: Actually, you missed it. Look upthread and follow the links.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Thanks Tina, certainly no-one coud call the Canada free press right-wing
http://www.canadafreepress.com/
Oh hold on.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I knew it therefore had to be peddling inaccurate facts re ex AGP scientists who became skeptics.
Thanks for the heads up sonic
September 6th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Tina, have you got a decent source rather some demented North American publication that leads with the headline
Moonbats can’t kill off angels
I mean, come on.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Aren’t these non Kyoto Americans doing well compared to NZ and China?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301510.html
Though I warn readers it’s prolly another right wing newspaper that doesn’t respect the facts on AGP like left wing newspapers do.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Countries that are serious about tackling climate change will have to accept the use of nuclear power, if not in their own countries, at least elsewhere. It is true that, regardless of how much New Zealand reduces its carbon footprint, it will have little effect on carbon levels. Where New Zealand can make a difference is by setting a good example to the rest of the world and contributing to research into carbon-reducing technological innovations.
By increasing its carbon emissions it is not setting a good example.
By contributing to the mass hysteria with regard to nuclear power it is helping to sabotage a sensible debate on nuclear technology, the only proven way of maintaining current levels of energy consumption and reducing carbon emissions.
On a related topic, has anyone noticed what has happened to the online polls on Stuff and the New Zealand Herald websites on acceptance of nuclear power? The Stuff poll, which had shown over 60% in favour of nuclear power, has been spammed. It now has 80% against. The New Zealand Herald poll, which has yet to be spammed, still has over 60% in favour.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Andrew W,
The attack from climate scientists at RealClimate (including their leader Prof. Gavin Schmidt) on Dr. Schwartz’s peer review publication (see below) on climate sensitivity is unbelievable. The attack is a co-ordinated one. Dr. James Annan called Dr. Schwartz’s work a a splash in the delusionosphere. Instead of publishing peer review papers to discredit Dr. Schwartz’s work, they use their popular RealClimate website to publish articles to attack Dr. Schwartz. Don’t you think that this is beyond doing science ?
“HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEM”
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
I know that Prof. Gavin Schmidt would do anything (use any equations or use someone else’s peer review paper) to discredit Dr. Schwartz’s work. Well, I believe that he picked a wrong algorithm , ie, AR(1) in System Identification to attack Dr. Schwartz. I hope that he posts his article soon enough at RealClimate to see if he could sustain his rhetoric against Dr. Schwartz’s.
Here is a hint to you? If Prof. Gavin Schmidt is to dismiss Dr. Schwartz’s work, then he would better give a clear name of the goodness of fit test of why Dr. Schwartz’s estimation of climate sensitivity is wrong. Simply stating it that it is wrong, because of blah, blah, blah, is not a goodness of fit test, therefore it must be dismissed.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Thanks for providing a decent source at last Tina.
Of course a drop of 1.3% still makes the USA the second biggest creator of greenhouse gases, but it’s a start.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I’m in a quandary.
I know this isn’t a left website so their direct quoting of this group of scientists, who aren’t AGP believers any more, must be made up.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm
Trouble is I had a quick Google and couldn’t find any recanting or objections from these scientists.
Now I don’t know what to think.
What if the report is accurate?
September 6th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Falafulu Fisi:
I’m not really sure just how meaningful your point is to the over-all climate change debate. But I do know that all of the national science academies in all the world’s industrialised countries agree the AGW is a real problem. So please forgive me if I lend more weight to their opinion that one random blog commentator.
BTW thanks for posting on my blog
“The global average air temperature near the Earth’s surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last 100 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”[1] via the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC.[4]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
September 6th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Flash – I agree that nuclear is a good option for many countries, however with New Zealand’s small size, high percentage of power coming from renewables, and realtively low percentage of emisisons coming from electricity generation, don’t think it would be an optimal option for us or one that would signfianctly alter our emissions levels.. it would be too expensive, would require a huge amount of infrastructure to be set up with no advantages of scale that somewhere like France has.
On the other hand, if electricity demand skyrockets with the introduction of plug-in hybrds and all-electric cars, and wind etc can’t keep up, then nuclear might become a more sensible option.
You’re also right that New Zealand’s role in tackling climate change is to be a leader/role-model, get the big boys to follow, and an technological innovator (we do lead the world on argicutlural emisisons reduction research)
September 6th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Sam
Agreed that it would not be a good option for New Zealand at this stage: the economic size of nuclear generators would not mesh well with our current generating plant and grid.
My concern is that by maintaining an explicit ban on nuclear assets we lend legitimacy to anti-nuclear groups in other countries at a time when, if the world is serious about addressing climate change, it needs to intensify research into nuclear power and build nuclear power stations where the alternative is coal.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Roger Nome said…
I’m not really sure just how meaningful your point is to the over-all climate change debate.
Phillip John, the point of my debate at RealClimate website was that I disgree with their attack on Dr. Schwartz’s published work. See, Dr. Schwartz’s work threw some doubts in regards to the the IPCC estimation of climate sensitivity. This basically means that if there is a doubt, then the IPCC projections collapses. The scientists at RealClimate had coordinated an attack on Dr. Schwartz’s work and called it misleading or inaccurate and blah, blah, blah. My view, is that Dr. Schwartz’s work might be right, since climate sensitivity is a dynamic parameter (a function of time) which changes all the time. The majority of the views today in the climate research communities still treat climate sensitivity as a static parameter meaning as a constant. Just the same as the speed of light, where it is a constant. The speed of light will be the same in the next 1 million years and not change, since it is a static parameter. However , in real world , climate sensitivity is a dynamic parameter rather than a static parameter. When sensitivity is treated as dynamic then global climate model is very difficult to solve numerically, regardless of how powerful your supercomputer is.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Remember web poll bias .
If we go nuclear would the US bomb us? I’m sure that Ajamajjamhjbaba would love to agree with bush that nuclear is the way to go but I think the pledge to reduce their carbon footprint by putting them back to the stone age is more likely.
Also do we get any credits for draining methane producing swamps? most of the waikato was swamp so maybe we haven’t increased methane production at all.
Finally what if the warming is caused by us but not by the ways that are being considered. It’s a bit out there but Aussie was totally different today from 40 thousand years ago due to a man with a fire stick, could land use and changes in plant cover be a contributor to warming?
September 6th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
And look at Dave’s graph of shame.
If it ‘s to be believed this is an out of control increase in NZ.
Maybe an emergency like this can be dealt with by shutting down a coal fired station
tomorrow or maybe having an odds and evens number plate system for car usage.
Something must be done now, if NZ is not to gain disrespect as a blatant Kyoto rorter.
If this is what happens with Ms Clark imagine the situation if Key gets in.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Flash – interesting point. Its complicated of course by the fact that the nuclear-free legislation is so tied up wth our national identity as independent-minded, not America’s lapdog (in contrast to Aussie) and environmentally aware.
Roll on fusion, I say (I wonder if my environmentalist brethern wil be anti-fusion power too becuase of its association with nuclear energy and hydrogen bombs?)
September 6th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Falafulu Fisi – it was my understanding that the modeling has taken account of “solar flares” and other things that effect global temperature, and therefore treat – so they do in fact treat global temperature as a “dynamic parameter”. In any case if you’re right we can expect to see the national science academies of the Industrialised world drop their support of AGW theory. Until that happens I think we have to treat AGW as a serious reality.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Shouldn’t we be planting trees or paying someone or something, right now?
September 6th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Phillip John,
You might be interested in the application of feedback control theory in economics. Here is a link to that.
“Feedback”
http://www.economicswebinstitute.org/glossary/feedback.htm
I had developed software in this area in the past (switching control & industrial visual inspection system), but now I am developing it into a module for a financial analytic application that soon be made available online.
The concepts of Feedback Control theory (and State Space) in climate is no difference than that in economics. It is no difference if it is a control system of a NASA rocket. The same mathematics except that they are used in different domains (climate, economics, rocket). I have come across a few economics papers on the application of feedback control theory in economics and if you’re interested then I will post them (links) on your blog site.
Our own NZ Reserve Bank do use feedback control algorithm such as Kalman Filter for econometric analysis (see the following discussion paper).
“A multivariate unobserved components model of cyclical activity”
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/discusspapers/dp00_4.pdf
If you wondered how GPS works? Yep, Kalman Filter is the algorithm that is used mostly today for GPS tracking, satellite navigation, auto-pilot, missile guidance systems. So, I think that researchers at the NZ Reserve Bank, could easily moved into engineering or climate modeling with less hassle.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
“What if the report is accurate”
Then you woult think a respectable source that was not clearly a toally bonkers partisan website would have repeatpicked it up.
Tina, have you checked any of the names yourself, made any effort to confirm who those people are?
Thought not
Try thinking for yourslelf Tina, you cannot believe everything you read.
(Oh and Tina, drop the faux sarcasm, it is hardly going to make anyone take you more seriously)
September 6th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“(Oh and Tina, drop the faux sarcasm, it is hardly going to make anyone take you more seriously)”
Yeah she’s a wee bit at times is our Tina. I’ve kind of grown fond of that little quirk of hers though. We are posting buddies after all right Tina?
September 6th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
hehe sorry, that should have been ….
Yeah she’s a wee bit CUTE at times is our Tina. I’ve kind of grown fond of that little quirk of hers though. We are posting buddies after all right Tina?
September 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Falafulu Fisi: hey thanks – interesting stuff you’re doing there. Unfortunately maths isn’t my strong point – I sort of gave up when it came to calculus – just didn’t float my boat. I am becoming more interested in statistics though. Loads of useful applications in my area of study.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Thanks for the advice sonic.
I Googled some of the names, they seem fine to me.
Is there something I’m missing there?
You of all people should be able to come up with some immediate fix for NZds carbon increase crisis.
Is this an emergency or doesn’t it matter? I’m torn between the two ideas.
And yes, Rog is my posting buddy but he’s a bit slow compared to you, no offence Rog.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
“And yes, Rog is my posting buddy but he’s a bit slow compared to you, no offence Rog.”
hey, none taken Tina – Sonic has got a pretty sharp wit. Right up there with Craig R. You on the other hand Tina, well you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you are my posting buddy and I luv ya
September 6th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
“Is there something I’m missing there?”
yes well unfortunately our Tina is a bit prone to missing things. She’s a bit slow like that .
Why don’t you try typing in the names of the “scientists” on those wacky right blogs of yours – right next to their names type “source watch” – it will tell you whether they are compromised or not, and to what degree. Hope that helps you Tina. I am here to help you after all, as we are posting buddies
September 6th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Is the IPCC going to explain why 1934 was the hotest year on record and if producing more CO2 causes warming why we haven’t broken that record in over 70 years?
Or would that be too hard for what the left or the so called consensus.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
mark – outiers don’t matter, its averages we are concerned with
September 6th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Please don’t be resentful Rog I don’t know if I could bear to lose my first net buddy.
Everyone’s born with different talents Rog, you will find something you are good at.
Always follow your dream no matter how humble and the money will take care of itself.
Now let’s get on with what to do to fix Dave’s graph, we are supposed to be carbon neutral and I fear that some unkind journalists may accuse Ms Clark of pretending to be doing something while all the time not doing anything to address the 20% increases in NZ.
I won’t have to remind you that this is way outside our Kyoto obligations.
What about our international reputation?
September 6th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Don’t worry Tina, there’s no resentment – your talents are quite dazzling and awe-inspiring at times. I continue to have my world-view turned upside-down by you nearly every day
And always remember, I’m here to help you – you can always count on me as your posting buddy!
Actually I agree – Labour’s “carbon neutral” line is hollow rhetoric, and so is National’s 50/50 line.
The greens seem to be the only party that has outlined practical measures to achieve a significant reduction in carbon emissions. The approach focuses on shifting taxation from productivity to pollution. It’s quite a simple concept, but I’m still not sure whether you’ll quite be able to grasp it, even with your considerable talents. Though do try, and remember i’ll be here to help you if you need a hand – remember I’m your posting buddy Tina!
you can learn about it here
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other9241.html
I sincerely hope that this helps you Tina
September 6th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Phew Rog. I’m so glad to see you smiling.
I will have a look at the site.
Maybe one thing that comes to mind before I do….
Would relying on the Green Party for information on these things be just the same as relying on whacky right wing blogs, only in reverse?
How do I know I can trust Green Party blogs any more than their opposition?
September 6th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
“How do I know I can trust Green Party blogs any more than their opposition?”
You don’t need to rely on the greens for information regarding AGW Tina You can try any of the OECD’s National science academies, or the IPCC.
As for the green’s strategies aimed at the reduction of carbon emissions. Well they mostly rely on utilising market mechanisms Tina – simple and effective. If you have any trouble understanding the concepts, remember I’m here to help
Happy reading!
September 6th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Rog, it may be my imagination but don’t you feel it’s just a little harder to breathe this year than last?
Could it be the NZ carbon emissions cutting in?
I’m really worried that long term market mechanisms wont solve our carbon emergency today, do you have any suggestions on what to do?
September 6th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
“Is the IPCC going to explain why 1934 was the hotest year on record and if producing more CO2 causes warming why we haven’t broken that record in over 70 years?”
FFS, the 1934 figure was for the US only, the global figures are here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
September 6th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Fuck me, the climate denialists are here in force with TALKING POINTS. Fuck you are going to feel really, really, really, really stupid in about five years when global warming is such a cast iron fact that it’s accepted like the Earth orbiting the Sun.
Hell, even then there may still be a few die hards – but they’ll be treated with the same disdain as those who say humans never went to the Moon or there was no systematic extermination of Jews, gypsies and gays by Germans in the 1940s.
I just read all of these desperate attempts to find some slither of doubt out of the growing mountain of evidence and I found it depressing.
AGW is established science. There are holes – as there always is – but the overall picture is bloody clear.
But despite this, people like Sonic and Roger are falling prey to the Denialist attempt to chip away at little specific issues rather than standing back and recognising this as the ideological crap it is.
Most Deniers refuse global warming not because of science (because the huge weight of science does not support their case) but because of ideology. They reject global warming because they don’t want it to be true. Unfortunately, the world don’t work like that.
We’ve already forced global warming – through human activity and that’s something we’re going to have to live with in the future – regardless of what we do now. The choices we have to make now are to look for ways of ameliorating those things that are making the situation worse.
The tragedy is that we’re going to have spend a few more years having pointless debates with morons who aren’t interested in facts and evidence – because it’s an ideological issue for them. Eventually the weight of evidence will overwhelm them. Just as the link between cancer and smoking finally overwhelmed the massive corporate-sponsored noise thrown up by the tobacco industry.
FF and others – just look at the tobacco industry’s egregious performance in the seventies. When you see footage of these old guys from Virginia trying to bluff a Senate Committee with embarassingly bad arguments, you cringe a bit. Well, fellahs, that’s your future. You’ll look back at this time with embarassment.
And given the internet now remembers everything, I am going to make sure that today’s Denialists are reminded in the future of their past ludicrous positions.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
“Everyone’s born with different talents Rog, you will find something you are good at.
Always follow your dream no matter how humble and the money will take care of itself”
You don’t need to worry about nome, his future looks bright! The jobs section of the Herald yesterday was absolutely chocka with ads for political scientists.
They’re in very high demand you know.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Tina, here’s a list of sceptics, at the bottom of this page is a link to a list of “former supporters” who are now sceptics, there are just 3 names there, all three on the free canada list. All the other suposed former supporters who are now sceptics have as far as I know always been sceptics from their first public utterances on AGW, it makes a bigger splash if a sceptics claims to have been formerly a AGW supporter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
September 6th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Incidently net emissions in Australia have grown faster than in NZ. The graph shows gross emissions – which simply means that Australia is better at massaging data.
Which is the problem with this kind of exercise – it is so easy to cheat.
net emissions in Britain are only 5% done on 1990
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6506223.stm#graph
September 6th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Thanks Andy W.
I guess then that all the scientists on the “free canada” list do disagree with the AGW view?
helmet, Rog tries hard, he has a fragile ego I think.
If as you say he’s unemployed you should sympathise, lack of paid work has destroyed many a person.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
“Most Deniers refuse global warming not because of science (because the huge weight of science does not support their case) but because of ideology. They reject global warming because they don’t want it to be true. Unfortunately, the world don’t work like that. ”
A point I’ve made many times, Falafulu Fisi for example (who is the only denialist on the blog who doesn’t talk crap) has stated that he doesn’t like tree huggers, links put forward by Ross have been so pathetic and blatently political in nature they’re not even worth responding to anymore – they’ve all been addressed and thoroughly answered all over the net and many times in the past on this site, Ross it seems is too stupid to look.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Yes Tina, there are indeed over a hundred scientists who are AGW denialists, a few are even qualified enough to make there views seemingly relevant, unfortunately scientists, like other people, can be blinkered by their politics. There are of course thousands of scientists who accept that AGW is real.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Andy W, do you have a list of the AGW denialist scientists. I’d be interested to see why they disagree.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Fuck, how can you warmist idiots be so blind to the wheels falling off you bus?
How the fuck can you say that it is us who are an ever decreasing minority?
Read this first
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
Can you just not admit one thing?
That skepticism/denial of global warming is growing as compared to four or five years ago
If you cannot bring yourselves to even admit that miniscule adjustment to your positions. I will see you as nothing more as blatantly lying propagandists.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Whether or not rising C02 levels are contributing to global warming, modern technology, as a result of research into renewable energy will reduce CO2 emissions. If that proves to be beneficial in that it reduces global warming, all to the good. If not the answer needs to besought elsewhere.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
If AGW is clearly the individual responsibility of every human on the planet as some claim then Govt incentives for individual action are necessary. One way to reduce emissions per person is to reduce the number of people. First of all boot back to the UK all Poms and Scots who have shown up here in the last 40 years (sorry sonic but you have to do your bit). Second throw out all this WFF shit and progressively tax all couples who have more than 2 children and give generous tax rebates to those who have one or none. Give generous one off payments to all individuals who opt in for voluntary sterilisation. GDP growth might suffer but hey it’s all about saving the planet, right?
September 6th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
kisekiman – you could slash the pom quota simply because we only spout a small fraction of hot air and methane that the average kiwi does. And Scots only have one testicle so they won’t reproduce as quickly. They might opt for voluntary sterialisation, but don’t tell them they are only eligible for half the cash.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Bloody hell emmess, you post a link to a blog of a minority report from the senate environment and public works committee, with Inhofes fingerprints all over it, listing the same old denialist names, the same old discredited research and you think this:
(a) isn’t blatant propaganda and,
(b) has some scientific value!
September 6th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Here’s some more AGW denialists for you Tina
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1281
September 6th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Andy W, I found some research on temperature leading carbon levels over eons.
I’m interested in contrarian thinkers.
Guess I don’t get how carbon can cause temperature increases via greenhouse if the lead relationship is in reality inverted.
Can you help me with this, I’m probably missing something.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Oooh Rog, posting buddy, I had a read of the Green site and some other commenters.
Please don’t take this personally, but in my experience I’ve found that people who have not done anything in their lives, like make a payroll or develop a business or make a living in a market and they still want to give advice on business taxation systems….. well, how to put it gently, they’re full of enthusiasm but dreadfully incompetent.
Sorry Rog, I have to say that the Greens are not credible as economic managers.
But don’t let this difference of opinion interfere with our buddiness.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Over the last few million years the Earth has been in an ice age. this ice age has had alternating glacial and interglacial periods, initially the gacial-interglacial cycle was 40,000 years long, more recently the cycle has been 100,000 years long.
The driver of this repeating cycle is generally accepted to be the Milankovitch cycles, these are slight changes in the Earths orbital characteristics brought about by the combined gravitational effects of the sun and moon on earth, the main impact of the cycles is to alter the tilt of the Earth in respect to it’s orbit about the sun, (the 24 degrees tilt the Earth has now varies) during interglacial periods(as we have now) the tilt is larger, this means that significantly more solar insulation falls at higher latitudes, the reduction in the ice that this increase in sun light on the poles causes increased warming, and a shrinking of the ice caps.
Less ice means a lower global albedo (less solar energy is reflected back into space, more is absorbed by the earth, a positive feed back occurs, this initial warming reduces the oceans and grounds ability to hold CO2 so CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise which results in a stronger GH effect and even more warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
September 6th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Thanks Andy W.
Ok, can I suppose then that the AGW argument would disintergrate if the M. cycle is shown to be an inaccurate theory?
September 6th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
If you look at this graph you can see the strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
September 6th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
“can I suppose then that the AGW argument would disintergrate if the M. cycle is shown to be an inaccurate theory?”
The M cycle is mathematically derived – it comes down to the laws of motion so I don’t think there’s any doubt that the cycles do happen.
The 100,000 year glacial – interglacial cycle is well documented in the ice cores and with other geological and paleological evidence.
There is no serious dispute that if you bump up CO2 levels enough you will enhance the GH effect.
End result is that the serious debate is over just how sensitive climate is to the increases in CO2 that have occurred since the industrial revolution. We have seen a 35% increase in CO2 in 150 years, from around 280 ppm to about 380 ppm, this increase is actually less – about half – of the increase that Mans activities, in land use change and burning fossel fuels would have caused had not much of this released CO2 not been absorbed by the environment, principly the oceans.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Ok Andy W, I’ll assume that AGW is probably not a threat if the M cycle is a maths prediction rather than something demonstrable in the geological record.
Is it true that higher atmospheric carbon coexisted with lower temperatures in the past?
September 6th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
This is the graph that AGW sceptics like to use to de-couple CO2 and global temperature, the problem is that over these timescales so many other factors come into play, the 650 million years covered by this graph is pretty much life on Earth, excluding microbes. the solar out put has increased significantly over this time, the continents combined to form the super continent of Pangea 200 million years ago and then dispersed, at times there has been land at the poles or not, the seas have been shallower etc. CO2 is one driver of the climate, over the period of decades to a few centuries mosts other factors, including divers like the Milankovitch cycle and longer are irrelevent.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm
September 6th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Tina…
“Shouldn’t we be planting trees…right now?”
Are you aware the govt appropriated the carbon credits from private forest owners? Are you aware this was done because of gross miscalculations by this government on NZs carbon liability at the time of the Kyoto protocol signing? (by some accounts an $800 million error).
There is no incentive to invest in forestry under current conditions – hence when you drive a round the country you will see vast areas which have been deforested and will be turned into dairy farms. Forest owners & the planet are being grossly mistreated under this govt.
Plant trees? Nah, plant grass, raise cows.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
September 6th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
That’s a pathetic response Andrew
I give you a huge list of climate change skeptical peer reviewed articles
And all I wanted was for you lot to admit climate skepticism is growing
And all you can do is attack the messenger
September 6th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Keep peddling, Red.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
By the way, Red, http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html
Two can play at posting links. The IPCC is the last authoritative source on climate change – or do you disagree?
September 7th, 2007 at 12:01 am
“The 100,000 year glacial – interglacial cycle is well documented in the ice cores and with other geological and paleological evidence.
There is no serious dispute that if you bump up CO2 levels enough you will enhance the GH effect.”
Except if the M cycle has bumped it up, then apparantly it has no effect.
Afterall the CO2 released by warming seas should trigger a catastrophic positive feedback effect.
ie, warming seas caused by greater radiation due to M cycle release more CO2; more CO2 -> increased temperatures; increased temperatures from elevated CO2 levels leds to more CO2 released from the gigantic ocean CO2 sink; more CO2 released leds to even higher temperatures and so on and on.
Yet this destructive positive feedback cycle never occurs.
There are more planetary homeostatic mechanisms twixt heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy my good chicken-licken sky falling in Horatios.
September 7th, 2007 at 12:07 am
swindle
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.htm
September 7th, 2007 at 12:14 am
DDD – Sheesh, science, what’s science ever given us?
Very true: genetic modification and nuclear power being just two examples. Thousands of scientists and engineers who are experts in those areas agree that they’re good things not bad, but somehow that “consensus” never seems to have been accepted by the most of the same people and groups who have jumped on the AGW bandwagon.
Four-legged dissidents good: two-legged dissidents bad.
Fuck me, the climate denialists are here in force with TALKING POINTS. Fuck you are going to feel really, really, really, really stupid in about five years when global warming is such a cast iron fact that it’s accepted like the Earth orbiting the Sun.
Possibly as stupid as all those people who jerked off about The Club of Rome and the “Population Bomb” in the 1970’s, and all their predictions of hundreds of millions starving to death while crawling across empty oil wells and exhausted tin mines by 2000. They had Phd’s and computer models and were not to be argued with by poorly educated skeptics.
Naturally the solution was for more government involvement, more central planning, taxes, regulations and any other method that would steer the great bovine mass of humanity in the proper direction. China’s “one-child” policy was looked upon as the sort of measure that could – sadly – never be imposed on a capitalist democracy!
AGW is established science.
At its core “established science” consists of experiments that can produce verifiable results consistently and repeatedly. AGW does not meet that standard. Find a hundred earths, run the CO2 experiment multiple times and get the same result – then you’ll have a science. And yes I’ve heard the last gasp defence that this just means we cannot run such an experiment on the only home we have. The problem is that the AGW crowd have no problem with the idea of running an alternative gigantic experiment on humanity in which we try to stop the way our societies have developed over the last 200 years.
There are holes – as there always is – but the overall picture is bloody clear
If the “holes” were just in the data or the models calculations that would be bad enough. Unfortunately the worst holes are in the assumptions – particularly around the sensitivity of the climate to increasing CO2 – which is why the latest analysis by Schwartz is, as FF pointed out, such a big hit against the models powers of prediction. It’s the predictions that are the centerpiece of the political push.
Most Deniers refuse global warming not because of science (because the huge weight of science does not support their case) but because of ideology.
Their ideology is less a slavish devotion to capitalism than a strong suspicion that this is just another wheeze for the planned-political-economy crowd to obtain and retain power over the people – for their own good of course.
This suspicion is well-founded given the history, particularly the last 40 years, of the movements that jump on scientific predictions, their constant mantra of the same solutions for any of the problems so identified, and of course their demand that “something has to be done NOW” – before the rapturous end is upon us.
They reject global warming because they don’t want it to be true. Unfortunately, the world don’t work like that.
As opposed to those people who desperately want it to be true because it reinforces long-held, cherished beliefs about how awful capitalism and representative democracy is for humans and everything else. Elitists who want it to be true so that it will justify the degree of control they wish to have over their fellow citizens. People tend to react rather badly to that sort of thing – especially when the pressure is ratched up – but I guess the control freaks have never learned that the world don’t work like that either.
The Greens wanting market mechanisms? Nice words that would be a lot more believable if they came from a party not consisting either of ex-communists like Loch (Marxist/Lennist) or Bradford (Maoist) – or the average Greenpeace member who lectures me about the awful consumerist, rapacious lifestyle I’m living. How about we talk about “their past ludicrous positions”.
If you’re pissed off now at the lack of action the I too eagerly look forward to five years from now to see what you’ll be like then.
However, I’m afraid the climate change crowd are now stuck with those of us who always argued that the relentless march of technological innovation, without targeted subsidies and government planning, would solve both the “problem” of ever-increasing CO2 production and provide the ability and the wealth to adapt to future environmental change – just as we have for thousands of years.
September 7th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Tom
Nice try. Really. But the veneer on your arguments is peeling (probably too hot and humid). Science is a process. It works towards consensus. There is pretty much a consensus now on climate change and the role humanity has played. As the science gets better, there are inevitable revisions to predictions, estimates and models. But the essential message is clear.
As much as you want to pretend that there is not an ideological dimension to Climate Denial it’s apparent in almost every post of every denier popping up in this thread.
I love capitalism. Love it! Want it forever. But I also recognise negative externalities should be internalised. That’s not Marxism, it’s working within the capitalist model. I would love a market-based solution to Climate Change. But that’s not what’s being argued by the Denialists. They don’t accept there is an issue to grapple with. How do you expect the market to deal with an issue if participants in that market refuse to recognise this issue?
You see, Tom, you’ve fallen into this trap of taking ideology before science, reason and evidence. Your position is about as credible as the Creationists arguing against evolution. It’s just not tenable in terms of the weight of evidence. The only credible way to argue against climate change/evolution is to simply deny the science and take an unreasoned, unevidenced position. That’s fine. But don’t pretend like it’s sophisticated.
As for running a giant experiment…well, most of the major options being talked about for managing back CO2 emissions involve changes that I suspect we would be making anyway as we become more sensitive to the impact of our activities have on the environment. Besides, even the most rabid Denier has to accept the globe is warming. Once you’ve accepted that, I can’t see why you might not then support reasonable efforts to control the potential for human forcing of climate change even if you don’t accept that it’s happended to date. If you accept the planet is warming (for some unknown reason) why wouldn’t it be prudent to ensure that human activity doesn’t add to the misery. You see, you don’t need to accept AGW to take action.
I love the way you’ve tried to draw parallels between the global scientific (and growing political) consensus about global warming with some specific now discredited ideas from days gone by. Like they’re even comparable! You show me the weight of evidence, the political and scientific consensus that sat behind China’s one child policy. You’ll be struggling.
September 7th, 2007 at 12:56 am
“The IPCC is the last authoritative source on climate change – or do you disagree?”
Staggering ignorance. How could you possibly not know of the information that is out there and has been out there for years that totally discredits the IPCC and exposes them as unscientific politically motivated propagandists bent on keeping the AGW funding ball rolling at any cost?
Bejezuz man, they’re part of the fucken UN, that band of commies, fraudsters, totalitarians, dictators, cronyists, human rights abusers, pornographers, slave traders, oil for food scammers, Saddamists, liars and general all round scumbags. How can you dare suggest them as a credible source? On climate change or anything?? Bizarre. Absolutely bizarre.
September 7th, 2007 at 6:48 am
“Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory”
“38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”"
RB, Firstly note that the paper has been submitted to “Energy and the Environment”, a publication with almost no circulation that has been specificaly set up to publish papers that reputable publications won’t.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1281
Also consider this: “(48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.”
Do they “refuse” or is it simply that the aspect of GW that these papers examine is not concerned specifically with what is driving GW? If warming in Idaho is causing a northward movement in the territory of a butterfly driver of the GW would be irrelevent to the paper, so the author probably wouldn’t cover it, that’s a long, long way from proof that the author doesn’t have an opinion on what that driver is.
No doubt now that E&E is set up the AGW denialists will be adding “papers” published in it to their little list of peer reviewed papers that reject AGW.
“warming seas caused by greater radiation due to M cycle release more CO2; more CO2 -> increased temperatures; increased temperatures from elevated CO2 levels leds to more CO2 released from the gigantic ocean CO2 sink; more CO2 released leds to even higher temperatures and so on and on.”
Idiot
“How could you possibly not know of the information that is out there and has been out there for years that totally discredits the IPCC and exposes them as unscientific politically motivated propagandists bent on keeping the AGW funding ball rolling at any cost? ”
Idiot
September 7th, 2007 at 7:02 am
DDD
And given the internet now remembers everything, I am going to make sure that today’s Denialists are reminded in the future of their past ludicrous positions.
Actually one can do quite well with books and magazines:
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,”
- Denis Hayes (chief organizer for Earth Day), The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine”
- Peter Gunter, North Texas State University professor, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970
The classic of course.
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over,”
“In the 1970s the world will undergo famines–hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”
- Paul Erlich, The Population Bomb
“the famines which are now approaching…are for a surety, inevitable….In fifteen years the famines will be catastrophic.”
- William and Paul Paddock , Famine 1975
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something,” ecologist Kenneth Watt declared to a Swarthmore College audience on April 19, 1970.
“civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
- Harvard biologist George Wald, 1970
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,”
- Barry Commoner (Washington University biologist ), Environment (Earth Day Issue 1970)
“There is growing doubt that the agricultural ecosystem will be able to accommodate both the anticipated increase of the human population to seven billion by the end of the century and the universal desire of the world’s hungry for a better diet”
– Lester Brown (Dept. Of Agriculture agronomist, Worldwatch Institute founder), Scientific American,
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
- Life Magazine, January 1970
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
- Ecologist Kenneth Watt, Time Magazine
“…. by 1980 the oxygen demand due to municipal wastes will equal the oxygen content of the total flow of all the U.S. river systems in the summer months.”
– National Research Council report (translated that means the fish would suffocate)
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
- Democratic Senator Gaylord Nelson, Look (1970).
“since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, (1975)
But perhaps your love of capitalism combined with a need to include negative externalities runs more to this form:
“High technology and heavy capital use cannot be subordinate to the ebb and flow of market demand. They require planning and it is the essence of planning that public behavior be made predictable–that is be subject to control.”
- John Kenneth Galbraith, The New Industrial State (1967)
There’s a pattern here:
- smart, educated, informed people, often with much scientific research.
- sophisticated, scientific models (whether computerised or not).
- doomsday predictions of humanities future.
- vast amounts of worshipful coverage in the antique media.
- Completely wrong, again and again and again.
“I’m scared, I have a 14 year old daughter whom I love very much. I know a lot of young people, and their world is being destroyed. My world is being destroyed. I’m 37 and I’d kind of like to live to be 67 in a reasonably pleasant world, and not die in some kind of holocaust in the next decade.”
- Paul Ehrlich, Look (1970)
Wish granted!!!!
Actually my favourite comes from one of the mentors of Bill Clinton:
“Bell bottoms have to be worn to be understood….They give the ankles a special freedom as if to invite dancing on the street.”
- Charles Reich, The Greening of America
September 7th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Shorter Tom Hunter.
Some scientists in the past made mistakes, therefore every scientist in the world is to be ignored.
Shorter Tina
There is no such thing as global warning, why is the government not doing anything to stop it.
Shorter Redbaiter
fucken commies, fraudsters, totalitarians, dictators, cronyists, human rights abusers, pornographers, slave traders, oil for food scammers, Saddamists, liars and general all round scumbags, and thats just the posterh here!
September 7th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Shorter Sonic and the warmists
I put my absolute faith in socialist government institutions without question, above all international socialist government institutions
September 7th, 2007 at 9:30 am
The warmists?
Did you make that up yourself or get help from a really awful spin Dr?
September 7th, 2007 at 9:51 am
“Energy and the Environment”, a publication with almost no circulation that has been specificaly set up to publish papers that reputable publications won’t.
OK, well hell, that’s it then.. lets just totally disregard everything said. After all, wouldn’t want to believe anything you read in papers that aren’t “reputable” (commie code for approved propaganda outlets)
“Idiot”
Yeah right. Great argument. Actually, an expression of utter frustration at the fact that *you* cannot control what is being said, a situation that always turns one eyed leftists apoplectic, whilst simultaneously revealing their typical utter ignorance concerning what logic and information underpins opposing views.
September 7th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Pull your head in Lance! The critisisms you throw at Jeanette Fitzsimons are just plain wrong, and the reforms that you tout as positive and industry led are actually Jeanette’s programs via EECA! Don’t misrepresent the facts. The sour grapes from a few in the industry do not reflect the real enthusiasm in the industry as a whole for having real standards, real accreditation and an Acceptable Solution for councils to check against, rather than government red tape. All of these have been spearheaded by Jeanette’s program, with only a few existing players crying over their milk. (Probably the ones most likely to be in the news for questionable installs) The flat spot in sales actually preceeds the roll out of the new program, which only kicked in at the end of May.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Good point sonic.
I suppose what I ‘m trying to say is with Dave’s graph showing a 20% increase in NZ and the long term measures taking decades to show any result isn’t it logical to treat the huge increase as a national emergency?
In which case we’ll need immediate action like shutting down half the vehicle fleet or similar.
If Ms Clark regards this as not worth doing does she have some information we don’t? I saw a post that said nothing that can be done in NZ will effect the world’s carbon output at all, maybe Ms Clark knows that so isn’t bothering?
What do you think.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Shorter Tina
I’m pretending not to know anything as trying to put the argument I really believe (The government, the UN and the scientists of the world are all inventing global warning) would make people think I was as mad as Redbaiter.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:32 am
I probably shouldn’t have used “idiot” in response to Natural party’s comment, runaway positive feedbacks do occur but often a new equilibrium is established without that happening.
You however RB are an idiot, you are always name calling and attacking the honesty and intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you, you as usual label me a lefty not because I am of the left but because I disagree with you. In fact politically I’m closer to classic liberal/libertarian.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:36 am
What brought this unpleasantness on sonic?
My question is very genuine.
If Ms Clark believes that AGW is such a problem why are we not treating the 20% increase in NZ as an emergency to be dealt with by any means immediately?
September 7th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Sonic, I agree that’s a fair summation of Tina.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Not you too Andy W!
My last posts have a genuine question, that seems to be upsetting some regular posters. I don[‘t mean to.
But you must admit the contradiction is pretty obvious?
There is probably a good reason we don’t know about
September 7th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Well, since you asked so nicely Tina, politicians are not well known for actually doing anything to address problems that might occur years after they’ve left office unless there’s a vote in it today.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:52 am
“You however RB are an idiot, you are always name calling”
Hahahah.. Hey commies, need any more proof of what dumbfucks you are. Get an intellect children. Sneering smug superior leftists- all with out a brain cell among the lot of them.
“In fact politically I’m closer to classic liberal/libertarian.”
In fact, politically you’re a boring little narcissistic totalitarian socialist. Its apparent from your endless spiteful attacks upon anyone who dares to think outside the confines of approved thought. A characteristic that is anathema to any true liberal.
Go away you pathetic whining unchallenging boring child. You and your global warming religion are fucked. Soon- no more money. Live with it you scaremongering tit sucking parasite.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Thanks for illustrating my point RB
September 7th, 2007 at 10:58 am
That’s good thinking Andrew W.
And it’s reassuring to know that Ms Clark thinks AGW is not so serious that this sort of increase needs any immediate action.
To me it looked very serious but I guess I don’t see the big picture.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Tina, where did anyone say “any immediate action” thats just an idiotic thing to say.
Oh and sorry for comparing you to redbaiter , as we can see above he is not only foul mouthed and abusive, but also rather thick.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Stop trying to yank my chain Tina, my position on AGW isn’t political, I’ve refuted the BS from both camps.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/04/another_warming_hypocrite.html
September 7th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I don’t get it sonic, “immediate action” seems to be needed to address a 20% increase in emissions by NZ.
That’s why I suggested odds and evens number plates for car use.
That would fix the emission blow out in a year.
Unless it really doesn’t matter and there is no need to act.
But Andrew W said Ms Clark is a politician who does not mind about long term emission because she will be out of office.
I think to be true to her beliefs she should do something about the carbon blow out that is happening right now in NZ because she is still in office and has no excuse,
September 7th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
“as we can see above he is not only foul mouthed and abusive, but also rather thick.”
Not that thick that I constantly imagine myself as being more than one person. That’s a special kind of thickness, that socialists are apparently peculiarly prone to.
September 7th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Alternatively, the slimy Hulun may wish to keep the economic consequences of controlling the 20% blowout from inconviencing the lives of the voters.
She could fix the blowout but doesn’t want the punters pouting.
Climate Porn….what a joke.
Ah, integrity where is thy sting?
September 8th, 2007 at 11:22 am
See Bin Laden is as one with the left on this issue. As he is with so many other issues.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
The left are natural allies of Binny, identical manifesto……
Except for the tax cut.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bin_laden_hero_of_the_left/
September 8th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Thanks for that link. Enjoyed the read.
Here’s a pretty funny one on AGW.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2007/09/04/british-yachtsman-who-counted-global-warming-cross-arctic-now-trapped-
September 8th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Hilarious.
I want these boys on the other side of an options trade.