More climate change problems for Govt
There is no portfolio area where the difference between rhetoric and reality is greater – than environment – specifically climate change. Clark talks about carbon neutrality while her growth in carbon emissions record is amongst the worse in the world compared to Kyoto targets.
Now a report by the NZ Institute reveals that the Government’s emissions trading scheme (already under fire by multiple groups) and other announced policies will have NZ miss our Kyoto target by 38 years!
Instead of getting back to our 1990 levels by 2012, they predict it won’t happen until 2050. Dr Skilling makes a valuable point:
Half of New Zealand’s emissions come from agriculture but it is harder to redesign a cow than a car.
The Government has voted in Bali to have a target of reducing emissions by 2020 to 25% to 40% below 1990 levels. To be blunt this is just not going to happen – it is almost a con. Even National’s goal of a 50% reduction by 2050 is looking overly optimistic according to NZI who suggest a 30% reduction by 2050 would be about as challenging as NZ could manage.
Related to this is a poll out by the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development. It’s a poll of those who take part within an online panel so not as robust as a truly random poll, but the Hive points out one interesting aspect:
When asked which of the two main parties would be best to manage climate change only 33% picked Labour and 32% picked National.
Also 35% of respondents ranked the Government’s management of climate change as below average and only 18% above average. Not good when this is meant to be Labour’s biggest issue.
This strongly suggests that the public (or at least those who take part in NZBCSD surveys) are seeing through the Government’s rhetoric and realising how appalling their actual record has been. I mean it is almost unthinkable that say a year ago just as many people would cite National being as good as Labour on climate change.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:24 am
It is also fantastic work by National. Like the other areas where they have released policy it is pretty clear that the public like National policy more than Labour policy. Labour have lost the ability to stand back and come up with pragmatic policy that resonates with the voters.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Still a LOFGW
March 6th, 2008 at 8:42 am
LOFGW?
March 6th, 2008 at 8:42 am
I see over at the hive that they are still talking about driving carbon intensive industry overseas. I note that this is one of the big differences between a properly designed carbon tax and a trading scheme.
A trading scheme works well when every country follows similar rules and international trading is trustworthy. That world will not exist – many other countries are not participating, not trustworthy, or will have a similar but incompatible scheme.
A carbon tax can be applied nationally with no impact to trade or incentives. As such it is the best option when the rest of the world aren’t yet playing. To refresh why this is so, remember that many NZ taxes are refunded on export and applied to imports – GST being just one example. If a carbon tax were designed in this same way then all imports would be subject to it, and all exports would have the carbon tax refunded. A carbon tax would create no incentive to drive emissions intensive industries offshore to potentially higher polluting countries.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:54 am
The sooner National find the guts to rubbish the whole carbon tax bullshit industry the better, just another case of a minority “smart“ group hijacking a populist concept and charging in with the help of lazy dumbasss reporters to basically con the western world. This reminds me of the way we were all made to feel like racists in the 80`s when a small group of Pakeha do-gooderes that could say keee aura and farnow with the help of a few opprtunistic Maori started the `extended family` theory for healing all of our hang-ups. In the end it is always about the `Money`.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:09 am
I live in hope that come 2013 much of this emissions crap will be only found in the history books. I’m always amused when it is claimed pastrol farming is responsible for the highest emissions, isn’t it convenient that this sector also produces a good propotion of our GDP. Is it true that NZ did not have to claim emissions from agriculture when kyoto was first set up? But government officials were quick to point out that agriculture was our main emittors of CO2 and “volunteered” our farmers as our main emittors. I think the belief at the time was that we were clean and green and had nothing to hide, boy were we taken to the cleaners. If New Zealand has to pay a billion dollars or so for carbon credits what price will countrys like Japan have to pay, surly many billions of dollars. If this is not so then we are indeed some of the most stupid people on the planet.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Very interesting that the report says:
I actually thought the EU wanted it to punish the US, so i’d be interested to know who in the US is pushing it.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I do the NZBCSD surveys and can tell you they are always full of heavily loaded questions with unbalanced choices of answers. Quite amateur in my view and usually designed to produce results to a preset agenda.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Is this the new carbon cycle
Socialist politicians need new “cause” to justify their existence
Hire scientists to come up with “science” to support their “cause”
Start a “market” to make sure that the money flows
Socialist politicians “govern” the “market”
Their existence is justified
What a happy circle.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:23 am
you seem to be quite delighted..dpf..that labour are ‘down there’..with national..
sorta shortsighted..?..doyathink..?
both labour and national are lagging so far behind what people want..
this piece will give you a taste of the building anger many of us are feeling..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/the-green-betrayalthis-is-about-gordon-brownbut-could-equally-be-about-helen-clark/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 6th, 2008 at 9:29 am
both labour and national are lagging so far behind what people want..
phil please tell us what we “want” as the suspense is killing me.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I don’t see how a poll that compares Labour to National could tell you that they are both lagging behind what people want. Interviewing the mirror this morning phil?
March 6th, 2008 at 9:44 am
I’ll admit it. I’m a diehard skeptic of the whole human caused global warming scam (I do believe in global warming, but not human produced.)
It is with extreme interest I see the latest satellite data that shows earths temperature has fallen so significantly since 1998 (more than .75 degrees) that it is now back to where it was at the turn of the century. But you will never hear this in the MSM. For example, on Niwa’s site you see that October was .5 degrees cooler than normal etc. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that if it was warmer they would be all over it.
Climate science used to attract about 170Mil a year for research, a reasonable amount given the size of the field. In one year this jumped up to 2 Bil, more than a factor of 10. This brought a lot of jobs, and a lot of people’s involvement that would not have been there if not for the money.
David Parker has now faced so many probing questions from scientists he won’t let them in the debate anymore. He alleges this is now for politicians to decide and too important for science.
This whole carbon credit nonsense is going to be a hugely expensive millstone that will not make a jot of difference.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Thats *relative* to the 1998 spike, with an *upward* trend, bogus news. Most people would look for explanations of such things…
For more fun scientific/scientific-ish arguments, click on the ‘climate change’ link under the original post, though I would tend to go to a specialist site for *hard* info/data.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Labour commitment like the EU to Kyoto is a crock. They signed the agreement and are now ignoring thier commitment to the targets they agreed too.
Under a left-wing government they will never met the targets.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Brian Fallow says the carbon plan is full of hot air in today’s Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10496383
March 6th, 2008 at 10:15 am
There’s a good site on the climate change debate, its a sort of clearing house for studies, reports, articles and scientific opinon both for and agaisnt climate change and issues around it. Not sure if most people have visited it but here it is anyway:
The link is: http://www.climatedebatedaily.com
Cheers.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:35 am
“phil please tell us what we “want” as the suspense is killing me.”
Hahah.. well said. Thanks for the smile.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Richard, on that particular site…http://hot-topic.co.nz/2008/01/04/false-equivalence-and-the-climate-debate/
Basically the argument is that the stuff ‘against’ AGW lacks the credibility of the ‘pro’ AGW scientists/scientific organisations. Although there seem to be a lot of general media articles there, even ‘blogspot’ blogs on both, which are fairly low in the peking order of scientific credibility I would venture…
The members of the ’skeptical views’ section in the left column (mostly free market think-tanks) have been examined by a politics Professor from the University of Florida there: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/global_environmental_politics/v006/6.1jacques.pdf , thought it was terribly interesting.
Can’t say the same for academic papers on the ‘Pro-IPCC Views’ section however…
March 6th, 2008 at 11:03 am
That should have been ‘pecking’…
Also I would agree with David on the ‘this government has been pants at doing anything on climate change view’, though I spose they’ve picked up their game slightly in that last year…
March 6th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Load of feel good wank Gooner.
I want the rot in phools head to spread to his fingers so we can be spared his assualts on punctuation and English.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:07 am
As I’ve noted elsewhere, this election is going to be fought over scorched earth.
Kyoto, the EFA, the anti-smacking bill and the xenophobic AIA legislation that applies to any “sensitive” land; are peculiarly negative legislation that seek to brand political opposition as anti green, religious fundies, child beaters and agents of rich foreigners.
JC
March 6th, 2008 at 11:13 am
…vs the watermelon, anti-family, interfering socialistic xenophobes. Mmm…should be really…dirty? Though it doesn’t sound like anyone is going to ‘do’ anything’ about Kyoto.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Bogusnews, we haven’t seen “a century of warming wiped out” as many denialists claim.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/stop_me_if_youve_reard_this_be.php#more
“on Niwa’s site you see that October was .5 degrees cooler than normal etc. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that if it was warmer they would be all over it.”
No, this sort of short term fluctuation isn’t unusual, it’s people such as yourself who keep trumpeting them – when it suits your position.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:43 am
gee..!..murray..!
remind us all again just when it was you ever said something even remotely interesting..?..
or even relevant..?
(‘brain-rot’..indeed..!)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 6th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Yep As others have said this is all about the money Grabbing Socialists and Communist greens started it but I fear the Nats are getting into it as well The toruble is when you show a pollie of any colour a way to rip money form the taxpayers pockets the bastards just cant help themselves They are all programmed that way.
The Party that stands up and takes the Emperors Clothes stand and shouts BULLSHIT will find a hell of a lot of support from the citizens.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Hence the Libertarianz’s soaring support these days.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
That right gd
Once the phony market is entrenched clever rich pricks will soon work out how to milk it.
The socialists won’t care though as having another control over millions of people world wide is their real goal.
And that is where the real power lies.
Bring out “An Inconvienient Truth 2″ in a few years time just to keep the “fear” levels up
March 6th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Ok. Here’s how it should work.
In Winter, Light less fires, use less electricity, wear woolen underwear and woolen jerseys. This will increase the demand for wool, and reduce the demand on energy. Net result, reduction in greenhouse gases and reduced dependance on coal and wood.
As wool has now increased in value, there will be more farmers who will remain in sheep farming, and should the value continue to increase, there will be a demand for land to be freed up for sheep. This will take arable land away from the dairy farmers, who own the cows that cause the bulk of the agricultural methane emissions. Net result, reduction in greenhouse gasses.
Where’s the problem. I’m off to get my jerseys out!
March 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
But you lot all deny climate change actually occurs, so who cares if the “evil Liarbore government” are reducing carbon emissions or not?
March 6th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
AGW is bogus. The warming alarmists say that “global temperature” (however that’s defined) is increasing because of human activity. But that’s only inside shonky computer models. In reality climate change is a natural phenomenon and since the late 1990’s we’ve been heading into a cooling phase.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
RRM, you must REALLY be keen for some rhetoric with that question!
March 6th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Why else would I follow Kiwiblog, Steve?
March 6th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
–Related to this is a poll out by the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development. It’s a poll of those who take part within an online panel so not as robust as a truly random poll
You don’t say DPF?
I have seen BBC Have Your Say Forums where the majority of people don’t buy into this BULLSHIT
And if anyone has seen the balance of opinions there regarding most topics (eg most people supporting Castro), they’d would know thats bloody amazing
March 6th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
It’s a good job that global warming is a crock of shit. With the world’s governments and the UN on the case, if it were real we’d be in deep trouble. Has anyone noticed that when governments try to achieve something they nearly always have the opposite effect.
With scientists saying that last year saw the largest *cooling* on record, and with a looming maunder minimum likely to plunge the world into a much cooler period, it can’t be long until the whole global warming house of cards falls down. Even the supporters are anticipating this, now calling it “climate change”, so they can pretend that global cooling is actually the problem (I guess the world just happens to be at the exact right temperature…). Sounds just like 1984 where the enemy periodically changed, but people were not supposed to notice. After all, we’ve already been at war with global cooling once if you believe these people.
Actually global cooling (ie an ice age) is a much bigger problem that warming. Warming is good. We could grow our own mangoes and pineapples. Getting rid of excess warmth is much easier than dealing with an ice age.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
and..what profession are you an ‘expert’ in..?..botox..?
pulling stuff out of your butt..?
fool..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 6th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
At least I have a profession, unlike you lazy prick
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
When it comes to pulling stuff out of your butt, you seem to be the real expert.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Andrew W
The point is that if it went up, the media would have it everywhere. It went down, and no one mentions it. The satellite data clearly shows that in the last 15 years temperature rose until 1998. It then stayed pretty steady (fell a fraction of a degree, but that means nothing) until 2006 where it fell hugely, by .5 degrees. 2006 was a very cold year indeed in NZ. Auckland had the coldest winter in 40 years, and Wellington the coldest in 50 years.
This is not what was meant to happen. The question a scientist who first researched this data put to David Parker was, how many more years are we going to have no temperature rise, or in fact temperature falls before the carbon induced global warming theory is seriously questioned by government.
I would have thought that was a reasonable question.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
are you being funded by an exxon mobil climate-change-denial ‘front-group’..?
or..maybe you are an exxon mobil funded front-group..?
eh..?
and that ‘profession’..is..?
(i don’t think ‘paid-trout’ counts..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 6th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Beautox,
well said.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Right of way is Way of Right says:
Ahhh but then we’d be told that much warmening is due to the expulsion of methane gas from the bowels of our Evil Ovine Overlords who’ve been planning this all along so as to increase their numbers as demand for wool rises. So no woolly jerseys for you, ROWIWOR… but perhaps you’ll be allowed to make camp downwind from the gently warming exhaust fumes of a Cabinet Minister’s BMW limo.
(Well, it makes as much sense as half the “science” advanced to back up these theories
)
March 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Hey phil, you know what “ad hominem” means? I guess not. Here’s a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
If you did you would realise how stupid you look.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
“The question a scientist who first researched this data put to David Parker was, how many more years are we going to have no temperature rise, or in fact temperature falls before the carbon induced global warming theory is seriously questioned by government.”
No one took me up on this bet last time I offered it.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/#more-569
Any takers this time?
March 6th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Rex: “Well, it makes as much sense as half the “science” advanced to back up these theories”
OK, which aspects of the science do you dispute?
March 6th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
OK Andrew W, here’s the aspects of the science that I smell a rat over. (off the top of my head – and I’m no expert – ask Dr Vincent Gray of Wellington sometime when you’ve got several hours, if not days, to spare arguing with a REAL expert – one of the top guys in the world, actually)
1) Calculating “average temperatures” from a network of monitoring stations that have reduced in numbers over the period of analysis
The drop in temperatures 1940-1975 while CO2 increased
2) Calculating an average based on just 2 measurements per day for each station: what is the temperature doing the rest of the time?
3) The SITING of temperature measuring stations: some in the middle of concrete and tarmac and some next to aircon and machinery exhaust ducts
4) The change in location of temperature station sites: for example, Wellington moved theirs from the Airport to Civic Square because it would give “Club Med Wellington” higher temperatures in the media
5) The urbanisation of what were greenfields sites where the temperature monitors are sited
6) Using proxies such as ice cores for the first two thirds of the 20th Century when ACTUAL CO2 measurements were available that contradicted the proxies
7) The inconvenient truth that CO2 follows temperature in the historical record, not the other way around
9) The ‘data fit’ of Solar activity to temperatures compared to that of CO2
10) The IPCC’s scandalously selective use of research and the “disturbing corruption of the peer-review process” that caused Dr Frederick Seitz to resign
While I can believe that CO2 emitted by man could be having some effect, I regard the IPCC’s attribution of the MAJORITY of forcing to this cause, as utterly dishonest. There are clearly other agendas, political ones, at work here. As Christopher Monckton put it, if this was something that had been jacked up by private enterprise rather than government bureaucracy, there would be a whole lot of business executives being prosecuted and about to join Conrad Black in jail.
March 6th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I haven’t a clue how that smiley face got in there in place of 8). I’ve tried to edit it, to no avail.
March 6th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Right ON PhilBest If you or i had come up with teh scam we would be in the pokey.
But the pollies and cardy wearers know if they throw some research money at ‘friendly’ scientists they can get all the proof they need to convince the dumb arses to pay up and to point the bone at those of us who arent so easily conned.
This will be viewed in the future just as we view the poor fools who believed the earth was flat and burnt those who disagreed at the stake.
And how they wish the old stake was still available today.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Well done PhilBest,
Could I add a couple of other queries namely:
1. Humans produce approximately 6.5 Giga Tons of CO2 per year. This sounds like a lot, until you realise that volcanos produce nearly 8 Giga tons, animals produce 150 GTons and decaying vegatation produces a further 200 Gtons. This means humans produce about 2% of the total CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. How exactly does our 2% make such a huge difference over the 98%?
2. CO2 is quite a heavy gas. It is formed by the addition of a large carbon atom to a pair of oxygen atoms. This means CO2 is approximately 150% heavier than normal air. This means it can’t get up into the stratosphere in any great quantity as gravity pulls it back down. So, well, how does this thick blanket work exactly?
3. CO2 takes up a very small part of the atmosphere. For every 1,000,000 parts of normal air, 999,620 parts of O2, Nitrogen etc. Somehow we are expected to believe that the 380 parts of CO2 will be catistrophic. Sorry guys, the only problem with the atmosphere I smell is the BS in the air.
There are many many many other queries you can put forward. Essentially, we like to believe we live in an age of reason, and while global warming is dressed up as science, it is not. It is total propaganda.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Good post PhilBest.
Andrew W: here’s a couple more questions for you:
What caused the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period (when it was warmer than today and Greenland was really green)? HINT: it wasn’t SUVs or incandescent light bulbs.
What caused the Little Ice Age (when the Thames and New York harbour froze over)? HINT: it coincided with a period of minimum solar activity such as we’re seeing now -oops.
Get real Andrew. AGW was a marginally plausable theory once, but the facts have over taken it. Admit it and move on. That’s what science is about.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Everyone knows that the sun has burnt at exactly the same temperature for the last several billion years and will do the same for the next few billion….
The only thing missing from the CO2 agrument is the Nitrogen
CON2
March 6th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The only thing that dramatically rises is the bullshit and the bank balances of the so called “experts” who have positioned themselves in this Global Warming debarkle.
Do let the truth of actual current temperatures be shown, that we have already returned back to much colder temperatures and that the mega scam biofuel production is creating massive amounts of CO2 in itself. The creation of farms and the destruction of rainforests, all this that consume vast amounts of CO2 to survive.
This is excellent on the topic, “CO2 the greatest scientific scandal of our time”
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
March 6th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Everyone knows that the sun has burnt at exactly the same temperature for the last several billion years
May be, but sunspots, magnetic field, cosmic radiation, orbital dynamics … these are the variables now linked to climate change and with far better correlation than CO2 concentration.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Sorry AGW It was sarcasim.
The sun like everything else changes with time.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
oops, my apologies bwakile. I’m so used to that sort of argument from the alarmists and nature-deniers.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Phil’s:
1) Calculating “average temperatures” from a network of monitoring stations that have reduced in numbers over the period of analysis
It global temperature measurements isn’t a simple mean of all stations, stations are weighted so data from stations in areas where coverage is sparse have higher per station weighting, the shear number of stations (many thousands worldwide)means that the error is small.
2) Calculating an average based on just 2 measurements per day for each station: what is the temperature doing the rest of the time?
As long as the time is taken at the same time each day the measure is consistant, when the time of the measurement has changed the data is corrected.
Here’s a graph of 2 surface and 2 satellite compilations, corrected for the different base periods each use, notice the close fit between them all.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/4way.jpg
3) The SITING of temperature measuring stations: some in the middle of concrete and tarmac and some next to aircon and machinery exhaust ducts
Urban stations aren’t used, as the satellite data isn’t significantly affected by this and the corrolation between satellite and surface data is so good it’s apparent that a good job has been done removing the impact of the UHI effect.
4) The change in location of temperature station sites: for example, Wellington moved theirs from the Airport to Civic Square because it would give “Club Med Wellington” higher temperatures in the media.
Covered above.
5) The urbanisation of what were greenfields sites where the temperature monitors are sited.
Covered above.
6) Using proxies such as ice cores for the first two thirds of the 20th Century when ACTUAL CO2 measurements were available that contradicted the proxies.
Those measurements were taken with less advanced systems in populated Europe:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/amateur-night.html
7) The inconvenient truth that CO2 follows temperature in the historical record, not the other way around
At 100,000 year intervals the Earth moves from glacial to interglacial periods, for the first 800 years CO2 lags temperature rise, for the remaining ~4200 years of the transition temperature lags CO2 rise, this means that CO2 is not the initial driver for the transition, it’s generally accepted that that initial driver is changes in Earth orbital motion known as the Milankovich cycles.
8. The drop in temperatures 1940-1975 while CO2 increased.
Global dimming due to aerosols (mainly sulphates from unfiltered coal emissions), these peaked in the 80’s and have been dropping since then.
9) The ‘data fit’ of Solar activity to temperatures compared to that of CO2.
Solar irradiance taken into account by the IPCC, it’s a factor, but modest compared to GHG over the last 50 years.
10) The IPCC’s scandalously selective use of research and the “disturbing corruption of the peer-review process” that caused Dr Frederick Seitz to resign.
Seitz is a denialist, he’s entitled to his opinion.
Bogusnews’:
1. Humans produce approximately 6.5 Giga Tons of CO2 per year. This sounds like a lot, until you realise that volcanos produce nearly 8 Giga tons, animals produce 150 GTons and decaying vegatation produces a further 200 Gtons. This means humans produce about 2% of the total CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. How exactly does our 2% make such a huge difference over the 98%?
Humans account for about 3% of gross annual CO2 emissions, but thats 3% added each year, over the last 100 years that small imbalance has added up to an increase of atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 385ppm.
2. CO2 is quite a heavy gas. It is formed by the addition of a large carbon atom to a pair of oxygen atoms. This means CO2 is approximately 150% heavier than normal air. This means it can’t get up into the stratosphere in any great quantity as gravity pulls it back down. So, well, how does this thick blanket work exactly?
CO2 is well mixed through the troposphere, and its concentration only slowly declines with altutude, the ‘blanket’ starts at ground level.
3. CO2 takes up a very small part of the atmosphere. For every 1,000,000 parts of normal air, 999,620 parts of O2, Nitrogen etc. Somehow we are expected to believe that the 380 parts of CO2 will be catistrophic. Sorry guys, the only problem with the atmosphere I smell is the BS in the air.
That little bit of naturally occuring CO2 and other GH gases is enough to lift the temperature at Earth surface 33C above what it would be without a GH ‘blanket’, the bit we’re adding is only expected to add ~3C to this natural warming, I don’t claim this will be catastrophic.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
AGW-HAHAHAHA : “What caused the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period (when it was warmer than today and Greenland was really green)? HINT: it wasn’t SUVs or incandescent light bulbs.
What caused the Little Ice Age (when the Thames and New York harbour froze over)? HINT: it coincided with a period of minimum solar activity such as we’re seeing now ”
Likely Regional variations as a result of changes to ocean current, land use (at the time Egypt was a great power much of the northern Sahara was farmed) the Maunder minimum may have contributed to the LIA but the LIA started long before the Maunder minimum and finished long after, the Greenland icecap is at least 700,000 years old, the Vikings only settled a couple of valleys in southern Greenland, those valleys, and others, are settled today.
We’re not seeing a period of minimum solar activity, all that’s happened is that the start of the next solar cycle hasn’t started yet, solar scientists aren’t reading much into that at this stage.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
itiswhatitis, your warwickhughes link doesn’t seem to work.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
OK, It’s working for me now, Jaworowski has no credibility
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
Here’s a NZ link that is useful in understanding how information is gained from the icecores. There are a few interesting pages in the ‘related content’ links.
http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/contexts/icy_ecosystems/nz_research/trapped_in_ice
March 6th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
You are all very knowledgeable about the theories and the causes and the bullshit, but going back 10 hours, why the fuck don`t National come out and rubbish the whole Carbon Tax conspiracy thereby giving Labour an `out` on the ridiculous Carbon Credit fiasco and then National can take the lead in a commonsense approach to Air and Water qualities at risk due to Human and Industrial practices. Bugger the World and concentrate on our own backyard. Also this will give all of the Graduates in Climatic and Global Warming Degrees the opportunity to diverse into more practical and useful educational pursuits. National use your Brains and take this one by the horns.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Thanks kehua
I’m with you on the commonsense approach to managing our environment. There is so much simple stuff we could do immediately at realistic costs. Bring back the Number 8 wire.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Wow, scary.
So many comments suggest that global warming is not happening but I am sure that there is not one scientist amongst you.
Labour has not gone far enough, it is the problem with MMP and having to deal with Peter Brown and Peter Dunne. This brings down the average parliamentary IQ with a thump. But I do not have the slightest clue what National would do. Anyway they have acknowledged that it is a phenomenon and needs to be addressed, does that make you deniers frustrated with them?
As for the other comments slice and dice the information however you want to but the scientific consensus appears to be overwhelming that human activity is having at least considerable effect. OK some of you think that volcanoes, sun spots and the state of Neptune’s moons are to blame but for me I would prefer that we actually did something just in case. In any event Oil is running out. With either problem dramatic change is needed now to avoid the possibility of a catastrophe.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Andrew W,
For the last 15 years we have been able to measure earths temperature using thermal imaging from satellites. This is much more accurate than the point measurements used previously. The evidence, which is not in dispute, is that temperatures rose slightly until 1998. From 1998 to 2005 they fell by a fraction of a degree, in 2006 they fell by .5 degrees, and further in 2007.
Where is the global warming in this?
Further, you are correct in saying that CO2 can get into the troposphere before falling back to earth, the question is how can the tiny amount that is there affect climate? As you freely admit most of this CO2 ends up close to earth (where it is first generated anyway), if 380 parts per million is the “Blanket” you speak of, then it is a mighty thin one. Where is the evidence that this tiny amount of CO2 will have the massive effect you claim? Judge Moniker confirmed in his case against an inconvenient truth that CO2 increases approximately 800-2000 years after temperature increases. There have been periods in earths history where there were 10 times as much CO2 as there is today but the whole earth did not burn up, if it had the massive effect you claim we should see it in temperature reconstruction records.
Further, there have been many periods in earths long history where the temperature has been much higher than today (such as the medieval warming period, and even warmer during the holocyn maxim) and there was no catastrophic problems. Much of our glorious medieval architecture came from that period. These warm periods appear to be times of great wealth rather than disasters.
So, why should I believe this global warming clap trap since CO2 is still rising, yet earths temperature is falling, and how does this minute, unbelievably think blanket of CO2 have the effects you claim. Water vapour is the major warming gas accounting for 95% of total warming on earth.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Kehua,
In a perfect world that would be a great way of doing things. Unfortunately Labour have most of the media in their back pocket and have shown an extraordinary capacity to dictate the terms of any debate. They effortlessly play the media like a fiddle and would arrange for Key to be crucified as not caring for the environment, not caring for your children etc etc. The media would fall into line and John would be lost.
Essentially, Key is adopting a policy that if he has to explain a policy he is lost, because the media will twist and distort anything he says.
You only have to look at the latest BS from the MSM. The real story is Cullen wiping 300 Mil from NZ’er investments, damaging NZ’s reputation to overseas investors, and then there is the fiasco and corruption of the Hawkes bay health board.
But what do you hear, “slippery John” the media, and he doesn’t know what he wants etc etc. It’s a disgrace.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
$200+ oil is a changed real estate paradigm.
Much more important to we capitalist running dogs than the manipulated delusions of crowds.
But by all means pretend away, the bottom of the food chain make nothing from the AGW panic, but I will.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
“For the last 15 years we have been able to measure earths temperature using thermal imaging from satellites. This is much more accurate than the point measurements used previously. The evidence, which is not in dispute, is that temperatures rose slightly until 1998. From 1998 to 2005 they fell by a fraction of a degree, in 2006 they fell by .5 degrees, and further in 2007.”
Untrue, I’ve posted enough links for you to know I don’t accept this, do you actually read my links? If you think they’re wrong refute them.
“Further, you are correct in saying that CO2 can get into the troposphere before falling back to earth, the question is how can the tiny amount that is there affect climate?”
Do you even read my comments? I said “CO2 is well mixed through the troposphere, and its concentration only slowly declines with altutude, the ‘blanket’ starts at ground level.”
“if 380 parts per million is the “Blanket” you speak of, then it is a mighty thin one.” that works out at about 4 Kg/ square metre, all this ‘blanket’ does is stop IR light, we don’t really appreciate what that means because we don’t see in IR, what would 4 Kg/ square M of something that blocked visible light do?
“There have been periods in earths history where there were 10 times as much CO2 as there is today but the whole earth did not burn up, if it had the massive effect you claim we should see it in temperature reconstruction records.”
Yep, go back 100 million years or so and the CO2 concentrations were higher, and Earths climate was warmer.
For at least the last million years Earth has been alternating between glacial and interglacial periods, except for the 800 or so years at the start of each move into the interglacial period high CO2 equals warmer climate.
“there have been many periods in earths long history where the temperature has been much higher than today (such as the medieval warming period, and even warmer during the holocyn maxim) and there was no catastrophic problems. Much of our glorious medieval architecture came from that period. These warm periods appear to be times of great wealth rather than disasters.”
As I said above, these variations are at least in part localised, as for ‘warmer is better’ that probably depends on where you live, it could be warmer and drought prone.
“Water vapour is the major warming gas accounting for 95% of total warming on earth.”
I’ve just pinched this from a comment by cce at deltiod:
“Based on calculations from NASA GISS ModelE, removing all GHG but CO2 would retain 26% of the greenhouse effect. In contrast, removing CO2 would reduce the greenhouse effect 9%. Thus, CO2 is 9-26% of the greenhouse effect. The same comparison for water vapor gives 36-66%, and water vapor and clouds together accounts for 66-85%. These figures are consistent with other studies. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
The source for the “CO2 is 5% of the greenhouse effect” claim seems to be the paper, “Solar Radiation Absorption by CO2, Overlap with H2O, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” (www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1993/92JD02887.shtml) but as is clear from the title they were talking about absorption of incoming solar radiation, not outgoing infrared radiation.”
March 6th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Can I just say to all of you people who think Global Warming is a myth…you are crazy. All of the facts point towards it. Most of the scientist that say that Global Warming is a lie are heavily influenced by a little thing called money. They are hired by big companies that want to keep on polluting, so they want you to think that Global Warming is a myth.
They are comfortable. They don’t want to accept the facts because it is inconvenient. But we need to realise that its not a lie and that it really is happening. We need to do something about it before it is too late, we may not be able to stop it but we can surely slow it down. We need to think about our children’s future and our grand children’s future.
As for Nationals Climate Change policy it has no depth. It is just a slogan and a figure. It is not aggressive enough, it is all about encouraging people and hoping everything will be alright. Is that really going to work?
However Labour’s policy isn’t much better. Both parties need to be more specific on the steps they are actually going to take to achieve their goals.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Andrew,
So the earth has been warming since 1998 has it, well, check these links then: http://www.nzcpr.com/guest57.htm which is a piece by Professor David Bellamy who states “Am I worried about carbon induced global warming? The answer is no and yes. No because there has been no sign of global warming in New Zealand since 1955, this year snow has fallen in Portugal for the first time in 52 years and 3 US states are united by the fact that they have recorded their lowest temperatures ever. Yes because it has become a political football that has lost its foundations in real science.”
Another link http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/ showing the large parts of the earth currently facing the coldest winters in over 50 years and they state: “Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change,” Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. “Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind.” In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: “The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change,”
Or this one http://www.leightonsmith.co.nz/Default.asp?s=topics&id=5378 where over 400 prominent scientists debunked the nonsense that is AGW. Lots more links can be tossed around if you want to play tag.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
“It is just a slogan and a figure”
Just like the $1 billion cheque we’ll be writing for Kyoto
Marge, Gore says we are all doomed so it must be true
Oh thats right he has connections to the Carbon market
Guess he has to pay for the big house and private jet somehow.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Marge; how to say this gently without destroying the good intentions of the Kiwi Boy Scout-ette that you are.
Money doesn’t believe it Marge.
Follow the Money Marge, because all the Money is doing is exploiting opportunities your and your govt’s AGW fear creates.
There are many signs of disbelief that retail investors can take from the pros, Marge.
Seen any long term structural problems with marina loans, Marge?
Any problems with 20-30 year money for waterfront property?
Any problems with long term rural finance in AU?
No?
Neither have I.
You don’t think it’s factored in?
Sorry Marge.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Bogusnews, I don’t supose you see any point in relying on sources like this one:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Or this one:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
Rather than the general media?
March 6th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Bogus, Andy doesn’t say “scientific consensus” these days.
Sorely tempted tho he is, he doesn’t want to be laughed at.
He means “govt consensus”.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Andrew,
coincidental you spoke of Nasa. In the artical outlining Gore’s reluctance to debate global warming is an interesting story regarding NASA.
“Gores reluctance to go toe-to-toe with global warming skeptics may have something to do with the – from the standpoint of climate change alarmists – unfortunate outcome of a global warming debate in New York last March. In the debate, a team of global warming skeptics composed of MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, University of London emeritus professor of biogeology Philip Stott, and physician-turned novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton handily defeated a team of climate alarmists headed by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt. Before the start of the nearly two-hour debate, the audience of several thousand polled 57.3 percent to 29.9 percent in favor of the proposition that global warming is a “crisis.” At the end of the debate, the numbers had changed dramatically, with 46.2 percent favoring the skeptical point of view and 42.2 percent siding with the alarmists.”
NASA didn’t seem to do very well there, understandable as AGW is utter nonsense. The fact remains that if humans only produce 2=3% of the total CO2 that goes into the environment, then you don’t need to be brilliant to realise that CO2 cannot possibly be the massive bug bear you claim it is. If so, then hey, let’s save the planet by killing every living thing. The so called blanket of CO2 you refer to is hardly a blanket, more like a few strands of cotten.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:30 am
And while we are talking about scientists, perhaps this link might help. It’s a PowerPoint presentation by Dr Gray at International Conference on Climate Change, New York, 3 March http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=222&Itemid=1
It is interesting in that it not only outlines the GW scam, but others as well.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:14 am
I find the terms “blanket” and “greenhouse” unhelpful. It wasn’t until I read that a reduction in the temperature as a result of the increase in C02 had been measured that I changed my view. Additional C02 allows the atmosphere to absorb heat more readily but it also radiates it more readily. At the top of the atmosphere it therefore radiates heat more effectively into space and becomes colder, but because the atmosphere is more opaque to the infrared the effective radiation surface is higher. It may be colder but because it’s higher with the temperature pressure gradient through the atmosphere this translates to a higher temperature at the surface. It should be possible to directly measure this at one place, like the middle of Australia (where it’s dry), I would have thought, using the annual variations in C02. Has this been tried?
A cap and trade ETS is a crock (for many reasons). The main one is unless everyone signs up to it then it’s a waste of time. We dig our coal and sell it to someone who hasn’t signed up then all our efforts are undone. BTW I haven’t seen any initiative to put out the coal fires in the South Island.
March 7th, 2008 at 8:29 am
To paraphrase Marge:
Can I just say to all of you people who think Global Warming is TRUE…you are crazy. All of the facts point AWAY FROM it. Most of the scientist that say that Global Warming is TRUE are heavily influenced by a little thing called money. They are hired by big RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS that want to keep on RESEARCHING, so they want you to think that Global Warming is TRUE.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Bogusnews,
The debate you refer to is covered on a page at realclimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-the-east-side/
The site seems to be down at the moment but, from memory, the topic of the debate was something like “global warming is likely to lead to catastrophe”.
This is not an argument I advocate, and I commented in the thread at reaclimate at the time that I didn’t think that such a conclusion was supported by the science.
As I’ve said before, scientists from both sides of the debate are influenced by ideology etc, and it’s a question of sticking to the numbers and not artibuting weight to those numbers that the maths doesn’t support.
So my position remains AGW is real, will likely lead to a rise in global temperatures of around 3C with business as usual.
The changes associated with such a rise will not be good for many, may be good for some, so I don’t claim a view on mitigation vs adaptation. But putting in place the systems to facilitate mitigation is probably the wiser move because we’ve only got one planet and can’t afford to stuff it up.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Regarding that PowerPoint, it’s a waste of time, eg. Gray claims a 65 year natural ossilation from evidence covering just 100 years – not even 2 cycles. Gray has no qualifications as a climate scientist and started to show his age long ago.
I see he also resorts to the unreliable CO2 measurements done in Europe prior to the short comings of urban areas as places to conduct such measurements being recognised.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Andrew W: “Medieval Warm Period …. Likely Regional variations”
Not so. Here is evidence that it was a global phenomenon http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp
Evidence is from: Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Europe, North America, South America.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Another AGW guru bites the dust.
A demolition in fact.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/540061/beware-the-politician-posing-as-a-scientist.thtml
But he did know what the required “consensus” was.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Oh, this is always just endless.
Seitz is a “denier”. Gray is “showing his age”. Jaworowski is “not credible”. TYPICAL. What if some of us think he IS credible? Read “CO2:The Greatest Scientific Scandal of our time”.
How can you claim that CO2 is “well mixed” in the troposphere, but turn around and discredit measurements that were taken “too near” an urban area? What about the measurements Jaworowski refers to that were taken at remote locations?
The satellite measurements in the troposphere actually contradict the global warming models.
The IPCC’s calculated increase in average temperature is actually less than the margin of error for the exercise.
The aerosols that might have been responsible for cooling 1940-1975, have reduced. WHY? Might the same phenomenon not be about to lead to reductions in CO2 emissions; ie advancing technology, irrespective of politicians and bureaucrats? Michael Crichton has some amusing things to say about this. Ehrlich stressing about the human race running out of food just as the problem is being solved anyway. The “global warming” scare mob stressing about CO2 emissions when the CO2-intensivity of economic activity has been dropping for 150 years.
Nice of you to recognise stuff like “Milankovich cycles”. Also: “We’re not seeing a period of minimum solar activity…..” whose argument is that meant to support, Andrew W?
And is a rise in “average” temperature “catastrophic”, if it involves higher minimum temperatures and nighttime temperatures? Where are the record high temperatures, and when did they occur?
So much bullshit, so little time…….
Is Professor Will Alexander of Pretoria Uni, “a denier”, and “not credible”, too?
http://www.fcpp.org/images/publications/Memo%203807%20Letter%20to%20High%20Commissioner.pdf
March 7th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“Oh, this is always just endless.”
Seems that way.
“Seitz is a “denier” yep. Gray is 86. On what do you base your belief that Jaworowski is credible? He’s one non-expert vs all the experts in analysing icecores.
“How can you claim that CO2 is “well mixed” in the troposphere, but turn around and discredit measurements that were taken “too near” an urban area? What about the measurements Jaworowski refers to that were taken at remote locations?”
Not me, the people who over the last 50 years have studied CO2 sampling, samples taken today in urban areas still show these elevated levels.
“The satellite measurements in the troposphere actually contradict the global warming models.”
No they don’t.
“The IPCC’s calculated increase in average temperature is actually less than the margin of error for the exercise.”
No, wrong again.
“The aerosols that might have been responsible for cooling 1940-1975, have reduced. WHY?”
Filtering of coal emissions.
“Might the same phenomenon not be about to lead to reductions in CO2 emissions; ie advancing technology, irrespective of politicians and bureaucrats?”
We agree on something, it would be great if improved technology leads to reduced emissions without the need for carbon trading etc.
“The “global warming” scare mob stressing about CO2 emissions when the CO2-intensivity of economic activity has been dropping for 150 years.”
Ahh, your playing with words, anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been rising steadily for the last 150 years, noone in the debate disputes that.
“Nice of you to recognise stuff like “Milankovich cycles”.
It’s part of the science with good evidence supporting it, of course I accept it.
“Also: “We’re not seeing a period of minimum solar activity…..” whose argument is that meant to support, Andrew W?”
That was a rebuttle of claims that solar activity showed we had entered a new Maunder minimum in the last few month, you seem to be taking it out of context suggesting I’m refering to the last few decades?
“And is a rise in “average” temperature “catastrophic”, if it involves higher minimum temperatures and nighttime temperatures? Where are the record high temperatures, and when did they occur?”
Is that addressed to me? I thought I had made my views on claims of “catastrophic” scenarios clear.
“So much bullshit, so little time…….”
You should see it from the other side of the fence…
AGW-HAHAHAHA . there’s a lot of uncertainties about the nature of the MWP and the LIA, there were variations regionally but yes, it’s likely that solar activity is a factor in long term climate trends, just as well that’s taken into account by the IPCC.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/a-linkage-between-the-lia-and-gulf-stream/langswitch_lang/sk
March 7th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The IPCC actually denied the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age when they adopted Mann’s (now totally discredited) Hockey Stick graph in 2001. Becuase they didn’t fit the pre-conceived notion that temperature was low in the past (good) and high now (bad). They have never to my knowledge renounced Mann’s work for the fraud that it is, they just quietly dropped from their latest report with no explanation. How can you trust “scientists” and an organisation that operates like that?
Solar activity is the driver of climate trends and correlates well with temperature records. CO2 conc. does not.
Have you read this paper by Alexander et al, http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ee%2018-6_alexander.pdf ?
Their conclusions:
“We believe that our studies provide solid confirmation of the view that the observed
multiyear variations in global climate are directly related to variations in solar activity.
Despite a diligent search we were unable to detect any adverse, multiyear changes in
rainfall, river flow and other hydrometeorological processes that could be attributed to
human activity. Our studies are reproducible by anybody with sufficient knowledge in
this field.
We trust that our research will trigger a fresh approach to the whole climate change
issue. It is necessary to state that neither of us has received any financial or other
assistance from any source in connection with these studies.”
March 7th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Perhaps you should read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Main points, the shape of the hockey stick graph has not changed despite the modifications made subsequent to the revision.
The main change was that the level of confidence in the graph covering the earlier part of the reconstruction was lower that Mann et al calculated, ie the error bars are wider proir the about 600 years ago.
The reconstruction was not perfect, but if a fraud has been committed it’s by those who have misrepresented the nature of the corrections.
Regarding the W. Alexander et al paper, other denialists haven’t taken any notice of it, probably because it’s so flawed, the 11 year solar cycle has a barely discernable influence on climate, the position of the planets doesn’t contribute to this solar cycle, rather it’s a product of the interaction of the suns magnetic field and the suns rate of rotation being different at different latitudes.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
If Mann’s hockey stick just needed a slight revision why did the IPCC drop it completely from its reports?
McIntyre et al showed that the computer algorithm Mann used (which he only belatedly made available for others to test) would produce “hockey sticks” even if random noise data were entered!
The hockey stick fiasco was one of the worst scientific frauds of recent times.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
“If Mann’s hockey stick just needed a slight revision why did the IPCC drop it completely from its reports?”
It’s recognised it’s less precise, also paleoclimate is less important these days, solar forcing may play a larger role than previously recognised over the longer term but there hasn’t been an upward trend in insolation over the last 50 years do attribute the observed warming to.
“McIntyre et al showed that the computer algorithm Mann used (which he only belatedly made available for others to test) would produce “hockey sticks” even if random noise data were entered!”
What hasn’t been mentioned in denialist circles is that the “hockey stick” graph wasn’t actually a product of the algorithms, there is no graph using the same proxies you can point to showing the difference between how Mann et al did it (producing the hockey stick) and how M&M say it should have been done (not producing the hockey stick).
March 7th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“Insolation” is solar radiation received at the earth’s surface.
It is not variation in insolation that is considered to be the primary climate driver. It is a combination sunspots, magnetic field, cosmic radiation, orbital dynamics … these are the variables now linked to climate change and with far better correlation than CO2 concentration.
“What hasn’t been mentioned in denialist circles is that the “hockey stick” graph wasn’t actually a product of the algorithms, there is no graph using the same proxies you can point to showing the difference between how Mann et al did it (producing the hockey stick) and how M&M say it should have been done (not producing the hockey stick).”
What are you saying ??? Mann provided the computer algorithm he used when forced to. McIntyre tested it using random noise data, and got … a hockey stick! If there is no other graph using the same proxies then that’s further evidence it was a fraud. In science, if no-one can reproduce your results then there’s a problem with your theory, your data, or your methods, or all three.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
The variation in all those things is greatest through the 11 year solar cycle with minimal effect on Earths climate.
What I’m saying is those proxies always produce the hockey stick graph, M&M were unable to produce different results using the data their way.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Al Gores reluctance to debate anything related to Global Warming my highlight his very own “inconvienient tryth” that he is a f—kn hypocrite and certainly does not practice what he preaches. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888
But hey, dont let the truth get in the way of people like Gore positioning themselves to reap the rewards of our guyilibilty. Oil companies and Big Pharma have been doing that for decades.
March 8th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
0.7 degrees of average temperature increase over 100 years IS WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR for such a calculation. If the climate models were correct, the satellite troposphere temperature measurements should be changing at a different rate to the ground-based monitors. They are not.
It is a question WHICH scientists are credible. Have you even bothered to read the Jaworowski report? It doesn’t sound like it from your comments above. Have you read the one from Pretoria Uni?
If anyone is now totally lacking in credibility, it is the IPCC. It is unprecedented to have so many scientists who have participated in what is allegedly a “peer-review” process, speaking out against it. What has happened is that the IPCC and other bodies that purport to represent so many thousand members, have been subverted at the leadership level. There is not a constant stream of petitions from scientists numbering in the hundreds who SUPPORT the IPCC.
Regarding the “Maunder Minimum” effect, you and I are not disagreeing on this, just misunderstanding each other. I say, though, that IF ONE STARTS (and you are saying that it has not), it will reveal the “Catastrophic AGW” scenario as the ridiculous joke that it is. But it is nice that you do not agree with the “catastrophic” thing either. Nice, too, that you too see technology as the answer. I am not just playing on words, the carbon intensivity of each unit of economic activity has been dropping for 150 years. Sure, overall emissions keep going up as economic growth occurs faster than the drop on carbon intensivity. But as nations reach a peak of development, a peak is exceeded and the TOTAL emissions start to DROP. It is only a matter of time before this phenomenon occurs on a worldwide scale.
If you agree on a lot of this, why are we arguing? Do you support the Kyoto Protocol? If you do, WHY THE……?
March 8th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
HERE’S ANOTHER GOODIE:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/the-magazine/features/540061/beware-the-politician-posing-as-a-scientist.thtml
March 8th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Phil, why do you think we will reach a peak of development? Peak development is not a theory I have heard before, peak oil definitely is. The US is arguably the most developed country in the world, their development has not (so far as I can tell) peaked. Some of the Scandinavian countries are arguably very developed, I see them being very good at shifting their carbon creation offshore so as to claim they are carbon neutral, but no evidence that their development has peaked.
I think what you are saying is that at some point the development and carbon per unit curves will cross, such that even though development increases, the carbon per unit is decreasing faster. For this to be true we need to show that the reduction rate of carbon per unit is more than the growth rate. So if we expect to grow at 3% or 4% per annum, we need to show that carbon per unit is dropping 4% or 5% per annum. I’m not sure that it is, although I agree that technology is likely to make that happen.
I am a strong believer that incentives are needed for that technology to come on stream faster. By that I don’t mean government subsidies (otherwise known as picking winners), but setting up the taxation and/or emissions systems such that emitting carbon has a cost. If the system is created in such a way that investors have reasonable certainty then the technology will come. At present it isn’t clear that low carbon technologies will represent a return on investment – there are too many uncertainties.
The devil with all this is in the detail. You need to not create incentives to shift things offshore, you need to recognise individual organisations or people’s personalised emissions rather than using industry averages (why farm using low carbon methods if you don’t actually get rewarded for it), you need to clearly spell out what the path of the taxes or emissions permits will be such that the private sector has reasonable certainty.
We also need to recognise that many of these technologies exist, but not yet at an economic cost. Why buy solar cells today when the ones next year will be so much better. It isn’t necessarily that people don’t want them, it is just that the innovation is so fast that there is no uptake. Conversely, the lack of uptake creates the perception that there is no market, and starves us of the investment needed to keep the innovation going.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
“The IPCC’s calculated increase in average temperature is actually less than the margin of error for the exercise.”
“0.7 degrees of average temperature increase over 100 years IS WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR for such a calculation.”
Perhaps I’m missing what you’re saying. If that is a claim that the method of measuring surface temperatures over the last 50 or 100 years is so imprecise that the margine of error is greater than the ~0.7C temperature rise measured, I have to disagree, perhaps you can supply a link?
I’ve seen that Jaworowski article (and others) sometime ago, read it then, skimmed it this time. Is there some point you think I’ve missed?
I wasn’t impressed with what I’ve seen from Alexander, and if King REALLY claims it’s warmer now than it has been for 60 million years, he’s at odds with the evidence I’ve seen. James Lovell is also an alarmist who has an opinion of a catastrophe way beyond what the science supports (I share this opinion with Gavin Schmidt), too much ideology, as with people on your side of the debate.
“There is not a constant stream of petitions from scientists numbering in the hundreds who SUPPORT the IPCC.”
It’s a case of the silent majority:
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/survey.pdf
March 8th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Oh my gosh I can not believe what I am hearing. I’m all for people having different opinions on things but can you please tell me what you are basing this on…scientists yes, but what scientist? name one.
To AGW-HAHAHAHA you said: “They are hired by big RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS that want to keep on RESEARCHING” so are you saying that researching is a bad thing? This shows that they must have some evidence to back it up, because they have researched it. They are after all a research organisation. Sounds about right doesn’t it?
March 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Marge: There are many who are not convinced by the warming evidence, or not convinced on the projections of the size of warming, or not convinced that it is human caused, or not convinced that the right answer is to change our way of life. The point is that many of them cannot acquire funding through our existing funding systems, as much R&D budget is allocated through processes that encourage researchers who are researching the orthodox views. So they are often funded by those outside the system – which may include evil big businesses, evil oil companies etc etc. The motives of these people are impugned because of the source of their funding.
However, it should be noted that this funding process also means that someone who does achieve funding within the system has a very strong incentive to continue to produce research that support the orthodoxy. Failing to support the orthodoxy may impact their funding and their livelihood – these people have families the same as the next person, they need to make a living. I’m not suggesting that those inside the system have bias any more than I am suggesting that those outside the system have bias. I am just suggesting that if you consider one to be biased, you would have to consider the other to be biased for pretty much the same reasons.
As to whether you are, in fact, one of those people who believes that those funded by big corporates are necessarily tainted, but those funded by big money government organisations are not, I don’t know. You could confirm it one way or the other for us.
March 8th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
marge..(as you probably know)..exxon mobil funded most of those front/’research’/denial organisations..
they have since stopped funding them..so paul’s ‘material’ has dried up..
he is obviously one of the few denier-believers left..
so no..he has no scientific/backing/footnotes for what he claims..
he just parrots the bullshit he’s read on those denial-sites..
and as you can see..he has a strong paranoia/conspiracy thread going as well..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Phil, are you referring to me? I suspect you have me confused with someone else – read my comment 3rd from the top.
I’m not a “denier” – the label is stupid and offensive, and it doesn’t describe me either. I have no conspiracy theory – I simply stated that if we mistrust researchers because of their funding source, then that must equally apply to all researchers with funding sources, not only those we happen to disagree with. Or, alternatively, we could agree that the funding source is completely irrelevant and the only important question is the quality of the science.
You seem to be the one with the conspiracy theory here.