Leyland on global warming

January 6th, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Bryan Leland writes in the Dom Post on global warming:

Although the world did warm by about 0.7C between 1975 and 1988, there has been no significant warming since then. All the major temperature records show that global warming has flattened off.

I think Bryan means 1998. In 1975 the average temperature was 0.17c below the norm. In 1988 it was 0.18c above the norm and in 1998 it was 0.55c above the norm – the highest year on record.

I wouldn’t quite say there has been no significant warming since then. 1998 was an exceptional high. A significant warming trend did continue until the early 2000s. However as one can see it has tapered off in recent years.

There is a divergence of views about the leveling off. Many factors affect the global temperature. I think it is premature to conclude it disproves global warming, but certainly the longer the “flat” period continues the more the prediction models will come under scrutiny.

Regarding sea levels, the highly accurate sea-level gauges installed around Australia and on the Pacific Islands (including Tuvalu) in the early 1990s showed that sea level rise is small – less than 3mm a year – and that, in recent years, it has levelled off. The 3mm a year is consistent with the sea-level rise that we have experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age. So the only strange thing that is happening is that we cannot explain why the sea level is no longer rising.

The increase is only around 3 mm a year, but this is up from 1.8 mm a year for the previous century. It is not dramatic end of the world Al Gore type hysteria rises, but it is an increase. The graph shows:

On the basis of that data, I wouldn’t say the sea level is no longer rising. It is. An increase of 3 mm a year is not the end of the world, but if it acclerates, then it does post significant challenges.

The climate models predict that an increase in carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming purely because they have been programmed to do just that. The science tells us that if we double carbon dioxide from the present level it might cause a warming of about 1C. The climate modellers escalate this 1-to-3C, with little supporting evidence, and then, quite predictably, the models show a much higher rate of warming. But if you talk to the modellers, they will tell you that the big unknown is the effect of clouds because they cannot model them with any accuracy. There is more and more evidence that an increase in temperature brings an increase in clouds and this has a cooling effect.

This is the area of most uncertainty, as I see it. As Bryan says there is no dispute about the direct impact of increased greenhouses gases being around 1 to 1.5 degrees (off memory). What is disputed is whether the indirect effects will magnify that warming, reduce it, or not affect it. Most climate scientists say it will magnify it, but this is based on models. I bow towards the majority view, but with the caution that if the data does not fit the models, then the models need to be re-evaluated.

One good thing about the decision to try and have a post-Kyoto agreement be completed by 2015, to start in 2020, is that several more years of data should help us understand how significant a problem the level of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is. It definitely is a problem, but the magnitude of the problem will ultimately depend on the data of the next few years, and beyond.

Tags: ,

153 Responses to “Leyland on global warming”

  1. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    My Goodness still hanging on to this nonsense – still it is a good racket for politicians and a non problem they can use to chatter on about and increase taxes and pretend they know something and can do something.

    Meanwhile the economies of the world tank and the useless buggers flounder totally incompetent as always but making sure that the fallout doesn’t hurt them or theirs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    BTW there is no “norm” – the planet is in a constant state of change and anyone who thinks any politician can influence, stop or change that needs their head read IMHO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. V (660 comments) says:

    I think Bryan means 1998. In 1975 the average temperature was 0.17c below the norm. In 1988 it was 0.18c above the norm and in 1998 it was 0.55c above the norm – the highest year on record.

    There is no ‘norm’ for global temperature, what you are referring to is what has been selected (by humans) to be the base year, which is usually itself an average of (say) a 30 year period.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Peter (1,471 comments) says:

    We skeptics are right. Not much chance of those who labelled us “deniers” apologising, however.

    It’s high time this AGW nonsense was buried. There are bigger problems to solve.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Manolo (12,643 comments) says:

    It definitely is a problem, but the magnitude of the problem will ultimately depend on the data of the next few years, and beyond.

    Really?

    The magnitude of the problem depends on how much money can be extracted from the peasants, before the masses realise the big scam Key and Nick Smith have inflicted on productive New Zealand.

    Yes, the ETS is a big scam and we’re paying for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mikenmild (8,903 comments) says:

    Peter

    You declaration that you are correct has convinced me. I apologise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. pidge (49 comments) says:

    And what about that warming from 1910 to 1940? What could have caused that? It was nearly as rapid a waming as 1980-2000. Can’t have been CO2 released from fossil fuel, has there wasn’t enough consumption then…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    mikenmild, I thought you already gone forever! Did your rest-home temporary allow you back to your childrens’/grand-kids’ homes just for the christmas festive period?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Peter (1,471 comments) says:

    Rather lack of proof and data that doesn’t fit the models, mikenmild.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Angus (536 comments) says:

    It looks like even John Key’s doppleganger may be close to giving up on it.

    From the Financial TImes:

    To the relief of many of the country’s biggest manufacturers and industries, there has been a distinct shift in the government’s tone on green issues. Even Steve Hilton, Mr Cameron’s chief policy adviser, and the man credited with coining the phrase “vote blue, go green”, appears to have had some serious second thoughts. “There is a clear disintegration of the green consensus,” says Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a critic of many climate policies. “We’re still at the stage of rhetoric rather than really strong rollback of policies, but it normally starts with the rhetoric before you start with policies.”

    And from james Delingpoles referencing article:

    As you’ll know by now, I’m not usually Mister Optimist. So what the hell am I doing crowing about victory in the climate wars when clearly there remains so much work to be done? We-e-ll: I think Benny Peiser nailed it in that quote above. Sure there are still heaps and heaps of really bad global-warming-related policies which remain on the statute books, notably such as the Climate Change Act in Britain, Julia Gillard’s carbon suicide tax in Australia, and all those swingeing environmental laws which are wreaking such economic havoc in greentard US states like California. As far as the battle of ideas is concerned, though, the Warmists are on the run. (By way of indication: do, please, linger awhile to cherish the stupidity, malignity and desperation of the comments from the Warmist trolls who fester beneath this blog. They’re bitter, hurt and angry, as of course, defeated armies always are. It’s a bit like what happens to Sauron’s orcish hordes after Gollum has chucked the ring into Mount Doom. Actually, not a bit like – exactly like.)

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100127634/ha-ha-warmist-losers-for-you-the-war-is-over/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Bryan Leland should learn what the term ‘long term trend’ means. Climate science uses a 30 year cycle to establish a meaningful trend that has any probabilistic reliability.

    If the current lull in temperature rise were to continue for another 20 years, then it would become a trend of ‘no significant rise in global average temperature’. That would be tremendous news but it is also very unlikely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Further info. for skeptics with an open mind:

    [Note: You are not a true skeptic if you have made up your mind about the issue of AGW. You are a denier one way or the other.]

    :arrow: “There’s also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on air temperatures when there are other, more useful indicators that can perhaps give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance — due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called ‘thermal mass’) — tend to give a much more ‘steady’ indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there’s no signs of it slowing any time soon.”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. sparky21 (10 comments) says:

    The rise in the sea level since around 1900 roughly coincides with the time we stopped taking whales out of the sea in big numbers. :)

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. adc (520 comments) says:

    how do you even measure sea level? above what – above the ocean floor?

    The tectonic plates are moving, they don’t just move horizontally, they move up and down in places as well.

    when you’re down at 3mm/year I would have thought it was within the range of expected plate movement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    Scott Chris should learn what “double talk” means.

    The future Mr Chris is unpredictable – the very idea that Government Policies can control the climate thirty years hence is an utter absurdity.

    Mate they can’t even stop Christchurch shaking, nor even say when it is likely to stop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kimble (4,095 comments) says:

    Is the Earth Warming?
    Is man responsible?
    Could man do anything to stop it?
    What would that cost?
    What are the costs of not doing it?
    Are there offsetting benefits to warming?

    Seems like all these questions should be conclusively answered before action was taken. How many have been?

    We are still at 1.5 at best.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. cha (3,541 comments) says:

    Canadian Terry Glavin’s Year of the lapdog sums up the real scam.

    It’s a rigged game. Canada is an open society, with an open economy. China is neither.

    In the case of cement, British Columbian cement producers are obliged to pay a stiff carbon tax. Chinese cement comes into Canada tax-free, produced by workers who are forbidden to form their own unions, and heaven help them if they get cranky about working 12-hour shifts seven days a week. But cement is just where it starts.

    Glavin concludes: We are all coolies now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Andrei

    I I know know what what double double talk talk is is and I wasn’t employing it. I was talking about trends and their analysis and reliability. You may find this useful:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_estimation

    Also predicting earthquakes is a completely different kettle of fish. The only data that scientists have to analyze is seismic data, and so far, all attempts to decode or understand “precursory seismicity patterns” have proved futile. Fact is, with a churned up crust, there are a gazillion variables of matter composition and pressure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. PaulL (5,776 comments) says:

    Some agreement and disagreement from me.
    1. Increase in CO2 does increase temperature. Basic physics. People who assert that there isn’t much CO2 therefore it cannot be a problem are ignoring clear science. People who point out that the amount emitted in a year by humans is relatively low are losing sight of the near doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in recent years, which can reasonably be attributed to human action.

    2. Whether the increase is continuing. It’s hard to say. It’s paused, but given el nino and la nina, the temperature does have natural cycles. Maybe without global warming we’d be cooling at the moment, and the net of the two is just that we’re staying static.

    3. Whether we can trust the temperature record. I’ve spent a little bit of time looking at the land-based temperature record. In short, I reckon it’s not accurate. I spent some of my own time looking at the NZ record in particular (it seemed strange to me that NZ was warming more than the surrounding ocean). The siting of many of the NZ thermometers that contribute to the record is notably dodgy. From looking around the web, that is also true in other countries. The satellite record shows less warming, the ocean record similarly so (refer again here: wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/31/krige-the-argo-probe-data-mr-spock/). It looks to me like there is some warming, but that most of the science in this area, given a choice of approaches to take, always takes the choice that maximises the measurement of that warming.

    4. The direction and size of feedbacks. Given the base warming that CO2 creates, do we get feedback that exaggerates that warming, or do feedbacks tend to pull us back to the long-term average. My reading on the modelling makes me dubious that the models are complete, and again the confirmation bias tends to drive people to model in positive feedbacks. Simple logic suggests to me the feedbacks must be negative – the earth has warmed before in teh past, and if feedbacks were positive we would have gone into runaway warming. The fact that didn’t happen in the past seems a reasonable suggestion that feedbacks are not positive, and I’ve seen nothing in the modelling that convinces me otherwise.

    5. Whether the science is settled. Not to my mind. It looks like it’s getting less settled, and the consensus is breaking down in the face of more research.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Scott Chris…

    Also predicting earthquakes is a completely different kettle of fish<

    What studies have you read on the subject?

    You can't predict the timing of occurrence and magnitudes of earthquakes. However one can use a number of empirical laws to estimate the probability of the frequency of occurrence and magnitudes at a specific time-window. Geo-physicists have a number of methods based on SOC (self organized criticality) dynamic process to estimate earthquakes. Do a Google on SOC and earthquakes and you’ll get a few references to those research papers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Dave A (61 comments) says:

    You may find this useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_estimation

    Oh haha ha ha Mr Scott Chris.

    This is just another of William M Connelly’s propaganda pieces promoting global warming. He has authored more than 5000 such pieces on Wikipedia and he and his allies control the pages, ensuring only their propaganda remains intact longer than five seconds.

    See this page to show he is the original author (he also pops up throughout the history changing things he does not like):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trend_estimation&offset=20110513162944&limit=500&action=history

    If the current lull in temperature rise were to continue for another 20 years, then it would become a trend of ‘no significant rise in global average temperature’. That would be tremendous news but it is also very unlikely.

    Why is it unlikely Mr Scott Chris? Because your heroes will maipulate the data to ensure it shows a warming trend where none exists, by continuing to remove weather stations in “cool” areas while keeping those in urban heat islands? Or is that statement just your religious belief?

    There were 30 years of warming to 1940, then 35 years of cooling so that by 1975 the predecessors of today’s alarmists were claiming we were all doomed because of a new ice age. Then another warming cycle began which lasted until 1998.

    Have you ever considered this might be a natural phenomenom? After all, the world warmed to the Roman Warm Period, then cooled to the Dark Ages, then warmed to the Medieval Warm, then cooled to the Little Ice Age, then warmed to the present.

    There were no 4WDs while all but the last 40 years of this was happening.

    Or do you follow Connelly, Jones, Mann et al who claim there were no such previous warming/cooling periods, and that temperatures were stable for thousands of years until just recently?

    A straight answer to this last question please Mr Scott Chris. Yes or no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    Why should anyone presume that slight warming is a problem.
    There have been several periods in during this interglacial when global temperatures were higher than they are today and during these periods civilisation boomed and populations grew. The Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period for example, were all warmer that today. The medieval warm period was followed by the Little Ice Age which ended around 1800. Naturally we have warmed somewhat since then, and flourished. The Little Ice Age was a disaster for most of humanity. Even the Polynesians stopper their great migrations. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a fertilizer and the recent increases have helped feed the plants that support the human population.
    ie Warm is Good. Cold is Bad. And we seem likely to be about to experience this first hand.
    Go here for an excellent presentation which may well explain why Canada has cried enough. Why would they want to stop some minor warming anyhow, even if they could.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi says:- “However one can use a number of empirical laws to estimate the probability of the frequency of occurrence and magnitudes at a specific time-window.”

    Yes, but the degree of accuracy is the problem. On a broad scale, of course it is more likely for there to be an earthquake on a fault line where previous earthquakes have occurred and been recorded and where the geology is well mapped. After shocks are also easier to predict within the parameters you mentioned, but no one knows with any degree of certainty when the big one will hit Wellington:

    :arrow: “The last time the Wellington Fault ruptured through the Wellington region, causing a major earthquake, was around 200 – 450 years ago. Geoscientists estimate the Wellington Fault will cause a major earthquake every 500-1000 years. However other faults around the Wellington region are also active and capable of generating a major earthquakes, for example the Ohariu Fault and the Wairarapa Fault which last ruptured in 1855 causing a great earthquake that severely affected Wellington. The frequency of large earthquakes affecting the Wellington Region is therefore much higher, with an average return time of about 150 years for a very strong or extreme ground shaking quake.”

    Not very accurate is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Dave A says:- “straight answer to this last question please”

    No. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    The Milankovich cycle and variable solar radiation both have a forcing effect on global climate. No one denies that. But the recent rise in average global temperature is not associated with either of those cycles. We are currently in a solar minimum period, a particularly big one as it happens, and the Milankovich cycle (earth’s mean distance from the sun) is also in a cooling phase.

    BUT IT’S GETTING HOTTER ANYWAY. The hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    PaulL

    “People who point out that the amount emitted in a year by humans is relatively low are losing sight of the near doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in recent years, which can reasonably be attributed to human action.”

    The current percentage of atmospheric CO2 from human activity is 0.117%
    Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28%
    99.72% of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are natural.
    [Data from 2000-2006]

    Double sounds scary….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kimble (4,095 comments) says:

    Double sounds scary….

    But is accurate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Nick K (919 comments) says:

    .7 of 1 degree. That’s right, .7 of 1 degree. If the planet cannot handle that then we may as well all pack our bags and buggar off. Point 7 of one degree!!

    A tax will solve it though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Manolo (12,643 comments) says:

    Why isn’t the incompetent Nick Smith sacked other this scam? Because the deranged crook, Key, and his Labour lite government and raking the taxes out of us. That’s why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Australis (99 comments) says:

    CO2 concentration has increased from 280ppm in 1750 to 390ppm in 2011. Doubling (ie 560ppm) is projected to occur in the late 21st century and cause a total temperature increase of 1.1°C. However, as the heating effect is logarithmic, more that 75% has already occurred. All this is “consensus” science.

    The consensus breaks down when it comes to net feedbacks. Empirical data suggests the net effect is negative, while the IPCC models use an (evidence-free) assumption that it is positive. All 19 models use different estimates for the effect of clouds, so the average of 3x is used. However, a “Nature” paper (by Schmittner et al) last month finds this multiplier is too high, and that the most likely outcome is modelled warming of 2.4°C if and when CO2 doubles.

    If the modellers are right, but New Zealand experiences the 33% ‘discount’ expected by NIWA, then we might eventually see warming of 1.6°C. This is great news! At that level, almost all of the effects are beneficent and our farm production will soar. We might even see a summer during future La Ninas.

    David, your information on sea levels is wrong. The 1.8mm was pre-satellite measurement, and used a quite different method of arriving at the statistical fiction of a “global” level. Since satellite-based estimates became available in the 1990s, the annual increase of 3mm remained constant until deceleration commenced in 2006. The rate of rise is now below 1.5mm pa, which is probably the lowest in at least 200 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    It always surprises me that the global warmists want money spect on solving this “problem” while hundreds of miilions of people die each year from preventable diseases and a lack of clean drinking water. I guess all these lives mean very little when you have an ideological position to defend.

    http://www.unicef.org/health/index_problem.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Australis says:- “Doubling (ie 560ppm) is projected to occur in the late 21st century and cause a total temperature increase of 1.1°C… All this is “consensus” science.”

    None that I know of. Your source? You appear to have chosen the lowest estimate of the lowest emissions projection. That involves reducing our current global CO2 level output by 50%. Do you see that happening with China and India on the rise and everyone else addicted to consumerism?
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Nick K says:- “.7 of 1 degree. That’s right, .7 of 1 degree. If the planet cannot handle that then we may as well all pack our bags and buggar off.”

    Errm…. that’s what it has risen so far. During the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 2.4 to 6.4 °C if we continue at our current rate of GHG emissions output increase.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Other_Andy says:- “99.72% of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are natural. [Data from 2000-2006]”

    Whose data Andy?

    ross says:- “It always surprises me that the global warmists want money spent on solving this “problem””

    OMG Ross is a denier. Shows this ain’t no lefty conspiracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Scott Chris, what trend analysis methods that you’re familiar with? I know all the techniques quoted in the page on wikipedia you linked to. I have implemented those algorithms in Java for my own use? To tell you the truth, try predicting the movement of the financial markets with those algorithms (I can give you my codes if you wish) and see if the algorithms are any better than Ken Ring’s prediction. You might as well toss a coin.

    I showed you the polynomial regression trend/curve fitting java applet the other day. Here are 2 activities that you can play with on the applet.

    #1) Same data but different degree/order of the polynomial
    Try increasing the order (or degree) of the polynomial by clicking at the arrow button at the bottom to 3, 4, 5, 6, etc,… and you see the whole curve which both ends (beginning & ending) can trend up or trend down. Order one polynomial is the straight line.

    #2) Order/degree 1 polynomial (straight line) but different number of data-points
    Try shrinking or increasing the number of data pair in the dataset (there are 8 pairs x and y provided) and fixing the order or degree of the polynomial at 1 (which is a straight line of the form : y = a*x + c). You will notice that the trend depends on the length of the time-series data or the window. There will be certain windows that the line will trend-up and there will be other time-windows that the line will trend-down.

    Here is a question that statisticians ask then about polynomial regression.

    What polynomial order that one should be using? The higher the degree/order of the polynomial the better (less error or model is said to be more accurate ). However if one is to use/choose say an order 4, which is cut & paste below from the polynomial regression Java applet above:

    f(x) = 2.685589512146e+00
    + 2.301459669061e+00 * x
    + -1.232630476516e+00 * x^2
    + 2.168915277298e-01 * x^3
    + -1.181972420484e-02 * x^4

    The user has no way of knowing whether the model is a true representative of underlying mechanism that generated the data or not. The only thing that he/she is confident of is the higher the order of the polynomial the lower the error. But higher polynomial model is ridiculous for anyone to use as he/she can see that the curve is simply nonsense. Again, see the Java applet above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. wat dabney (3,465 comments) says:

    99.72% of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are natural.

    Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Simon Arnold (94 comments) says:

    Scott Chris @ January 6th, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    I thought your reference to wiki on trends was quite useful. Basically it says (correctly) that the temperature record doesn’t meet the requirements to make either the kinds of statement Bryan Leyland or you make about trends in this data set.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    “OMG Ross is a denier…”

    A strange comment given that hundreds of millions die each year from preventable diseases. I’d like to see a little more attention paid to that…meanwhile you’d apparently prefer to play games.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. JamesS (352 comments) says:

    Global warming is crap. Doesn’t exist. A fiction designed by left wingers and socialists to be all trendy and fashionable so they do not need to get a job like everyone else.

    If you believe in global warming I presume you also were gullible enough to have Blue Chip and Bridgecorp investments ha ha

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. cha (3,541 comments) says:

    .7 of 1 degree. That’s right, .7 of 1 degree. If the planet cannot handle that then we may as well all pack our bags and buggar off. Point 7 of one degree!!

    From the abstract:

    We conclude that Earth in the warmest interglacial periods of the past million years was less than 1{\deg}C warmer than in the Holocene

    http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968v2.pdf

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    ross says:- “meanwhile you’d apparently prefer to play games”

    This isn’t a game. Yes it is a tragedy that people die of preventable diseases. On the other hand, the human species as a whole is very successful. And in the process we’ve wiped out 40% of our co inhabitants. Warming the globe a further 3 to 6 degrees is going to fuck over a whole bunch more as well as the poorest of our species.

    But really, we’re on the same page. The quicker women are empowered and poverty is eliminated, the quicker we can put the brakes on our ever burgeoning population. Can’t really be done any other humane way.

    You seem like a reasonably intelligent fellow. Just read the wiki page with an open mind.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Australis (99 comments) says:

    Scott Chris uses invented figures, without addressing the core problem with his hypothesis – that the warming has stopped!

    See http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/latest-satellite-data-human-co2-emissions-have-caused-earth-to-cool-over-past-15-years.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. vibenna (305 comments) says:

    Hmnn, a few facts.

    1. All temperature records, including the satellite record, show warming.
    2. Global sea ice has been trending downwards for decades
    3. Atmospheric CO2 hasn’t been this high for 15 million years
    4. The change in CO2 has occurred is less than 100 years ! (Unlike normal geological processes)
    4. Burning lots of fossil fuel and changing land use is clearly responsible for most of this CO2 increase
    6. Time series do not change smoothly, and the climate has many cycles.
    7. The current pause in global warming is consistent with the cyclical nature of climate.
    8. So when warming starts again, it will probably do so at double the average rate. (0.2C per decade).

    I think scepticism is healthy. But refusing to acknowledge fairly basic facts, such as 1-7 above, is not very responsible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kimble (4,095 comments) says:

    You seem like a reasonably intelligent fellow.

    Wow, Scott, you sure are one sarcastic son-of-a-bitch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi says:- “and see if the algorithms are any better than Ken Ring’s prediction”

    I’m sure they are. I have no respect for Ken Ring. He is an exploiter of others ignorance like all astrologers and sellers of snake oil. He just plays around with patterns in numbers and attributes meaning where there isn’t any. He’s probably a numerologist, not that I give a fuck.

    Yes the moon’s gravity exerts a tidal effect on the land as well as the sea, but there is no statistical correlation between earthquakes and lunar cycles. That is just bollocks. Certainly if enough pressure builds up through plate tectonics to generate an earthquake then the gravitational effect of the moon may be the straw that breaks the camels back, but the relationship would be completely random with the earth revolving every 24 hours and factoring in the suns gravitational effect and the lunar orbit cycle.

    Just pretty numbers. Not my thing really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. trout (865 comments) says:

    Vibenna @ 7.216pm; I suggest you listen through the link that Owen was good enough to provide

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM

    Your may want review your dogmatism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Steve (4,330 comments) says:

    Link, link, link to the links of your choice, depending on the fence you sit upon.

    There seem to be a lot of people expounding their intelligence onto others using one tool.
    They can use a keyboard. Using a computer to link, copy, paste does not make you an expert, it makes you a fucking moron because you are not learning, you are passing on info to other morons.

    The child of the future will not need a TEACHER other than a teacher to show them a keyboard

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. PaulL (5,776 comments) says:

    Vibenna: agree, but you miss:
    9. The different records show different amounts of warming – there is legitimate question about how much warming we have
    10. There is question about the relationship between CO2 increase and temperature – clearly there is a relationship, but again the size is in question, and many people think that the climate models that assume positive feedback are incorrect
    11. There appears no realistic way to reduce CO2 short of nuclear, which politically won’t fly at the moment. No country is successfully reducing emissions (however some are exporting them / importing emissions intensive things – including Germany who import power from the rest of Europe now they’ve shut down their own nuclear plants)
    12. Given the problem has unknown size, potentially isn’t a problem at all, and has no known solution with current technology, it’s difficult to see what exactly we’re going to do about it
    13. The world has lots of other problems that have known solutions that we seem to do nothing much about – we could focus on them instead, at least there’s a chance of making an impact

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. PaulL (5,776 comments) says:

    Of course, to go in a different direction, if I was dictator of earth (inshallah) I reckon I could do something about it. I would immediately:
    1. Mandate removal of all subsidies to fossil fuels. Just yesterday I think I saw rioting in Nigeria because the government wants to cut subsidies to petrol – unlike the first world who double the cost with taxes, in Nigeria the halve the cost with subsidies. Perhaps that’s why a climate treaty that doesn’t involve developing countries is a waste of time. I think I recall China, Indonesia and maybe India also subsidise one or another fossil fuel

    2. Remove all operating subsidies to “green” technologies. Increase funding to research on “green” technologies – using my definition (which is technologies that emit little CO2 – so nuclear and hydro would be included)

    3. Mandate that each country have a CO2 reduction plan. The question would be asked of “what resources do we have in abundance?” Solar is a bit dumb in the UK and Germany, it’s pretty smart in Australia. Hydro is real smart in NZ. Each country would have a proper white paper written about what resources they’re blessed with, and what they’re not. Then there would be a referendum held on whether that country wanted to:
    a. make use of the resources they have (for example, NZ might dam more rivers)
    b. substantially increase the price of electricity, with specific figures given
    c. build nuclear plants
    The results would be binding, and it wouldn’t be possible to have a position of “cheap power, no more rivers dammed, no nuclear and reduction in fossil fuel usage” – which seems to be the position of many greenies

    4. Start directly addressing wealth in the third world. Richer people emit more CO2, but they also have lower population growth and less general environmental degradation. The quicker the third world gets rich, the quicker they’ll move from third world fuel sources (burning dung anyone – any idea of the carbon footprint?) to first world fuel sources like nuclear

    5. Personally, I’m in favour of thorium molten salt reactors. If I was dictator, I could indulge that, so I’d push a few hundred billion into that research, and override objections that people may have to building some to see if they work.

    But, unfortunately for all of you (and for me) I appear not to be dictator.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    AGW would have to be the biggest load of bullshit . This fucking government and their bullshit mates should be strung up. Of course we must pay our dues just like air china does when they fly into Europe I still shine my guns, please come a calling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    Vibenna

    I haven’t got the time or the energy to go over all of your ‘facts’
    Looking at what ‘facts’ you care to mention and the way you frame the ‘facts’ are interesting.
    While some of your facts are correct, they don’t prove a thing and are misleading.

    This one stood out…
    ‘Atmospheric CO2 hasn’t been this high for 15 million years.’

    First, you are wrong, even in the last 1500 years there were four occasions where CO2 concentrations were just as high as or higher than today.
    Secondly, why the 15 million years’ timeline?
    Because you are dishonest and you are trying to mislead people, that’s why. The Quaternary (Today) is one of the two only periods in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today. Looking at the bigger picture the level of Atmospheric CO2 is actually very unusual in that it is very low, not high.

    There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 million years ago), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
    The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.
    The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today.
    More important, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today.

    Your ‘facts’ don’t mean anything.
    You are either very gullible and somebody has pulled the wool over your eyes or you are deceitful.
    Which one of the two?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Other _Andy, }Vinbenna, “so when warming ” starts” again.” Oh for fucks sake , are degrees in stupidly all the rage in NZ now days with our young.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Australis (99 comments) says:

    All of Vibenna’s “facts” are wrong:
    1. None of the temperature records, except GISS, show any warming over the last decade.
    2. Global sea ice has been trending upwards for three decades. Only the Arctic has seen a decrease.
    3. See comment 1082
    4. The change in CO2 has occurred over 250 years, increasing sharply during the last 20.

    The remaining 4 points are red herrings. If we project forward to 2100 the actual temperature trend experienced over the past 30 years, we get increased warming of 0.5°C. This will produce a great many winners and very few losers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Well, here’s what I reckon will happen in a hundred years:

    There isn’t the political will to do anything meaningful about GHG emissions, so things are going to heat up. Then the shit will hit the fan and the boat people will start arriving, only to be blown out of the water by National Navies.

    Then, in an effort to cool things off, H-bombs will be detonated in volcanos to send radioactive ash particles into the stratosphere in order to bring on a mild nuclear winter. This will be an ongoing process, because the particles return to earth after a couple of years, whereas CO2 needs plants such as algae and trees to convert it back to solid organic compounds.

    Looks like we’re really gonna fuck things up.

    But that’s okay, because our great grand kids will have to deal with it not us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    Australis

    As for the arctic……

    The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
    Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
    Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

    Sounds like one of those scary examples of AGW doesn’t it?

    It isn’t, it is a ‘Monthly Weather Review’ article from November 1922.

    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

    (Sudden) temparature changes in the Arctic are apparently nothing new.
    And…
    Nothing to do with anthropogenic. Global warming.
    But it sure scares the gullible and iuninformed public and provides the ‘scientist’ who toes the AGW line with another government grant for more research.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Scott Chris, here are 2 papers that should be good reading for you on the earthquakes rough estimations.

    #1) Earthquake Forecasting Based on Data Assimilation : Sequential Monte Carlo Methods for Renewal Processes

    #2) Theory of Earthquake Recurrence Times

    I suggest you read them. It will increase the level of your knowledge bank on the topic of earthquakes.

    If you want more, on the topic, then check out Prof. Sornette’s page. He’s an expert geo-physicist on the earthquake subject.

    Earthquakes and Ruptures

    All his pre-prints are available from there. I’m no expert on earthquakes, but I keep an eye on the use of SOC (self organized criticality) in the literature by geo-physicists because that very same process is found to operate in the financial markets (my domain of interest). The bubbles/crashes frequencies and sizes distribution in the financial markets follow the same mechanism as earthquakes (frequency/magnitude distribution), ie, power-law. Prof. Sornette’s page, which I linked to above, he is also an econo-physicist expert.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. vibenna (305 comments) says:

    Just to pick up a couple of points:

    Australis: I don’t understand why you say global sea ice has been trending upwards for the past three decades. The publicly available data show that is has been melting. See arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg. You might like to have a look at the data and amend your claim.

    Other_Andy: Yes, CO2 has been much higher in the past. But not in the recent past, during which our ecosystem and current flora and fauna have evolved. I have no doubt the biosphere will get on fine at different levels of CO2. But us, and our ecosystem? That’s another matter. The pain of the change is what concerns me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Thanks Falafulu, but really, I just like to get the gist of things. There’s just too much stuff in the world to learn, so either you can be a specialist in one or two specific subjects, or you can be an all-rounder.

    For someone like me, there is ample information in the following wikipage:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_prediction

    It states:

    :arrow: “Scientists still do not know many of the details of the physical processes involved in earthquakes and how to predict them…….. Many phenomena are considered to be possible precursors of earthquakes, and among those under investigation are seismicity, changes in the ionosphere, various types of electromagnetic indicators including infrared and radio waves, radon emissions, and even unusual animal behavior.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Yoza (1,353 comments) says:

    The real problem with the idea of anthropogenic global warming is its inability to conform to neo-liberal economic dogma. In the Milton Friedman style economic model it doesn’t matter how intensely resources are exploited; how ruthlessly people are treated; how rampantly the planet is polluted, all that matters is the level of return on the capital invested. As the concept of AGW threatens contemporary economic fantasies it, predictably, must be attacked at every opportunity.

    People like Bryan Leyland must love the sheer terror that the scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming imbues in the CEOs and owners of industries that contribute a disproportionate share of greenhouse gasses to this growing global catastrophe. Manufacturing ‘facts’ to counter the overwhelming scientific consensus, that anthropogenic global warming is a real threat to the survival of the species, has become a multi-billion dollar enterprise.

    The world does not have an infinite amount of resources and it does not have an infinite capacity to absorb the pollution that is a consequence of the exploitation of those resources. No amount of AGW-denier sophistry can refute this simple, yet glaringly obvious, point.

    At some point we will be forced to deal with a reality that does not accommodate current political and economic dogma, the sooner we do the less traumatic will be the experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Yoza….read this and weep re your “overwhelming scientific consensus”…

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/

    ” How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.

    To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.

    The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.

    This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.”

    Yeah thats right..just 77 scientists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kevin155 (2 comments) says:

    Brilliant article Bryan, The facts you portray are correct however it is the policy (ETS) that is doing the damage. Canada has it right they pulled out of Kyoto.
    The damage the cost of the ETS is doing to the poor in this country is immense for no benefit to the country as a whole or to the climate. There is a very good video of the sceptics submissions to the Canadian Senate http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/01/canadian-senate-testimony-skeptic-side-now-being-heard-in-canadian-politics/
    The transcripts are available from the Senate. Oh to have the NZ Govt. have open hearings such as these. The travesty of the corrupt science and politics of the UNFCC and IPCC is well covered by Donna Laframboise in “The Delinquent Teenager….” a must read for every politician as is Ross McKitricks essay on the IPCC, how our Government can continue to support these blatantly corrupt organisations is a mystery. Is it a case of follow the money or the good times, 26 officials got the Durban tan and we also paid for Tuvalu (3) total taxpayer funded 29. This does not include Scientists from CRI’s, Universities or Polytechnics who we also fund. The 29 were just bureaucrats and 2 Ministers for what 2 pages of utter drivel making sure that the fiasco can be repeated next year and at many meetings in between. How can we have faith in a Government that is being led to the watering hole by a bunch of self serving bureaucrats and scientists. The science is complex in the extreme and some of our scientist are doing great work but the UN game must be closed for good and we must find a better mechanism to solve the problem real or imagined before we destroy the economy with these insane solutions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Bogusnews (425 comments) says:

    I am very skeptical regarding the effects of CO2 on temperature for what i believe is a good reason.

    Currently CO2 is at about 388 ppm. For the last 300 Mil years however it has averaged about 1100 ppm and has at times been over 7000 ppm (incidentally during an ice age).

    So I am truly bewildered as to how an additional one, two or even three hundred parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere will make that much of a difference. I mean even if we triple the amount of CO2, it will only be at the level it has been on average for the last 300 Mil years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    The believers in Global warming or climate change or what ever now have the same shrieking tone of the religious fanatic.

    Is it the new religion ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    Paul,

    Global warming has been a religion for quite some time. It is not new.

    Scott Chris’ attitude is a common one. It doesn’t matter that millions are dying from easily preventable diseases and from a lack of clean drinking water. The most important thing is we must identifiy all those deniers (cf Holocaust deniers) and burn them at the stake. The fact that we could save millions of lives each year is not important and should not be discussed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @Vibenna

    As you said, the climate changes all the time as it has done for millions of years. Whole ecosystems have died out and enveloped over time. Animals, plants and humans either adapt or die out, this is the way is has always been and always will be, no matter what we do. Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the “greenhouse effect” and although some people might think we are important, in the grand scale of things we are but insignificant organisms. One earthquake will flatten cities, one tsunami will wipe the landscape clean and one volcanic eruption will change the Earth’s climate for years. One solar flare in the wrong direction and the Earth will turn in a lifeless sterile rock.

    ‘Yoza’, our Green Party member commenting a little later on, shows you what this really is about.
    The ‘Green’ movement since it was started in the 1970s by the Club of Rome is not an environmental movement but a political movement, a Post Modern Religion which tries to use science to accomplish its political objectives, to “transform humanity into a global interdependent sustainable society, based on respect and reverence for the Earth (CoR).”. The Eart Charter, the UN’s Agenda21 and the UN’s “Our Global Neighbourhood.” Document are all political documents advocating a global government based on socialist-Marxist principles, limiting democratic institutions.
    “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
    David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth
    “If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
    Judi Bari,
    principal organiser of Earth First!

    Anthropogenic global warming is just the latest hoax-tool to accomplish these goals. When the science doesn’t back up the theory, people like Yoza will paint dissenters as morally corrupt neocons and rampant polluters who ‘treat people ruthlessly’, ‘exploit the Earth’s resources’ and only care about money. If you are not one of us, you are one of those evil people or as Bush said: “If you are not for us, you are against us.

    For people like Yoza, science is not about the truth, it is about consensus, echoing what others have said before him.
    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
    Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
    Paul Watson,co-founder of Greenpeace

    While they have been caught manufacturing facts and changing data, Yoza and his followers are attacking those who don’t toe the line and accuse them of “Manufacturing ‘facts’ to counter the overwhelming scientific consensus”. They accuse dissenters of being “a multi-billion dollar enterprise”, conveniently leaving out that the AGW ‘scientists’ are funded with billions of dollars by the shadowy global organisations of billionaires and multi-millionaires.

    “We are on the verge of a global transformation.All we need is the right major crisis…”
    David Rockefeller
    Club of Rome executive member, multi billionaire and owner of Standard Oil

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    The Scorned says:- “read this and weep”

    The National Post is a very bent source of information. It surprises me you’d be taken in by it, as you tend to espouse strictly rationalist ideals. Well known denier Lawrence Solomon is just masturbating with meaningless numbers. Propaganda.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Bogusnews says:- “For the last 300 Mil years however it has averaged about 1100 ppm and has at times been over 7000 ppm (incidentally during an ice age).”

    Yes, you raise an interesting point. You won’t like the answer though. During the Ordovician period, the sun would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a 3000 ppmv or so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_solar_model

    Apart from which, the fact that carbon dioxide causes warming is well established by physics theory and decades of laboratory measurements. This is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements that observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the *wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorbs energy*.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Pauleastbay says:- “Is it the new religion ?”

    No. A religion does not have a rational basis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    It’s interesting to quote Bjorn Lomborg, who of course is not a skeptic but has no doubt that global warming is real.

    “Kyoto is basically a costly way of doing little for much richer people far in the future. We need to ask
    ourselves if this should be our first priority.

    Of course, in the best of all worlds, we would not need to choose our priorities. We could do all good
    things. We could win the war against hunger, end conflicts, stop communicable diseases, provide clean
    drinking water, improve education and halt climate change. But we can’t do everything. So we must ask
    the hard question: what should we do first?

    Some of the world’s top economists – including three Nobel Laureates – answered this question [and] found that dealing with HIV/AIDS, hunger, free trade, and malaria were the world’s top priorities, where we could do the most good for our money. Moreover, they put urgent responses to climate change at the bottom of the list. In fact, the panel called these ventures
    – including Kyoto – “bad projects,” because they cost more than the good they do. As the economics of climate change has become ever clearer, warnings from the global warming community have become shriller. For example, the head of the UN Climate Panel says, “We are risking the ability of the human race to survive.”

    Such statements make headlines, but they are nonsense.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    ross says:- “It doesn’t matter that millions are dying from easily preventable diseases”

    Yes it does. Thing is, you want to throw one ball into the air and catch it. You might want to learn how to juggle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    There is more and more evidence that an increase in temperature brings an increase in clouds and this has a cooling effect.

    A year ago I asked if anyone could explain where global warming, gases holding heat in, with enough further pollution would convert to a ‘nuclear winter’, when enough krap up there keeps the sun’s heat out to start with.
    The answer was obvious – get as much krap up there as quickly as possible.
    QED.

    Many sources indicate the greatest achievement of personkind could be the eradication of malaria and the effective control of population.
    How much money could be made from the computer models juggling those lives saved against the population reduction needed to balance that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    The whole debate about Global Warming is so completely irrelevant. “Political Warming” will have a much more significant impact on humanity than incremental changes in temperature – a myopic obsession of the science-minded west, while people are fighting for food and freedom in a host of boiling point countries, some with nukes.

    We have to get real. We’re like fashionable lovelies on the Titanic discussing decline in cotton prices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. fatnuts (164 comments) says:

    Interesting reading. I didn’t see comment on recent findings published by CERN:

    “We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we’ve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays.”

    Pretty hard to make a case that the science is “settled”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. rg (190 comments) says:

    Tim Groser has said NZ will consider signing a second round of Kyoto starting in 2013 with binding commitments, (first round was not binding) if other countries like USA and China agree to start a process towards a binding agreement in 2020. Here NZ goes again shooting itself in the foot.
    It was a National Govt that signed Kyoto in the first place and now this National Govt is considering further handicapping our country by agreeing to binding commitments that other countries are not signed up to. Any Govt that does what Groser is suggesting should be kicked out of office for ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @SC

    Your post at 8.39 is hilarious.
    Please re-read it.

    “Yes, you raise an interesting point. You won’t like the answer though. During the Ordovician period, the sun would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a 3000 ppmv or so.”
    And then you say:
    “Apart from which, the fact that carbon dioxide causes warming is well established by physics theory and decades of laboratory measurements. This is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements that observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the *wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorbs energy*.”

    Apart from the fact that you keep on hammering on about CO2 (only 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity) and ignore water vapour (accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect and 99.99% of natural origin), you now concede that the Sun (Directly or indirectly) affects both the climate and the forming of CO2.

    11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
    21,000 year cycle: Earth’s combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
    41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth’s orbit ( tilt )
    100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )

    This in turn effects:

    Heat retention and Solar reflectivity.
    Resulting in the seasons, changing ocean currents, quasiperiodic climate patterns, cloud formation, the disappearance and formation of glaciers and ice formation.

    It’s just a ride, it’s just a ride
    No need to run, no need to hide
    It’ll take you round and round
    Sometimes you’re up, sometimes you’re down
    It’s just a ride, it’s just a ride
    Don’t be scared, don’t hide your eyes
    It may feel so real inside, but don’t forget
    It’s just a ride

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Scott Chris, the reason why earthquakes’ prediction is useless is because it is a SOC (self-organized criticality) phenomena. No one can predict the time evolution of any system that’s undergoing SOC (be it climate, earthquakes, economics, etc…) simply for the fact that its triggering is local and not global. The statistical regularities of earthquake SOC has been empirically found (that’s what I mentioned above), but the prediction of precise timing & magnitudes is something that no one can predict.

    The NZ Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences prediction about Christchurch is reasonably accurate in the last few years, however their prediction is not about a specific time and specific place. They use probability distribution & likelihood. No wondered that have they come under attack from the frustrated public for not knowing the precise time/place of earthquakes, but no one can do that. I think that there is a misconception in the public of the meaning of earthquake prediction. Scientists used the term for its statistical regularities, such as Gutenberg-Richter magnitude/frequency relation (which exhibits a power-law – a SOC signature), but not to tell when and where an earthquake will hit.

    Anyway, Plate tectonics/earthquakes is governed by conservation of angular momentum.

    Since we’re off-topic here, the following is a paper on using SOC for climate data analysis.

    Quaternary climatic fluctuations as a consequence of self-organized criticality

    The reason that prediction of climate system is useless is because it is a SOC process. You can’t predict SOC system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Other_Andy says:- “Your post at 8.39 is hilarious.”

    I’m pleased you found it entertaining Andy. Thing is, the very high level of CO2 back then was a godsend. Up until 650 million years ago ice ages weren’t the woosy ones we’ve had recently. We’re talking one big fucking huge snowball.

    But one eras treasure is another eras trash. CO2 has turned from hero to villain.

    Still, it just makes you reflect upon how lucky we are to exist at all. Conditions seem to have almost conspired to produce us if you choose to take an anthropocentric view of things….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Other Andy says:- “Apart from the fact that you keep on hammering on about CO2… and ignore water vapour…. you now concede that the Sun… affects both the climate and the forming of CO2.”

    You are confusing me with others you’ve debated with. Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas and accounts for around 31 degrees C of warming. CO2 is a forcing agent, which acts in a completely different way from water vapour, and it’s warming effect varies depending upon it’s concentration in the atmosphere.

    Solar radiation varies in an rough 8 to 14 year cycle, and we are currently experiencing a particularly prolonged solar minimum period. Some have even (erroneously) claimed that we are entering a Maunder-like period.

    But despite this solar minimum, the 12 month period from June 2009 to May 2010 WAS THE HOTTEST 12 MONTH PERIOD EVER RECORDED.

    Doesn’t that tell you something Andy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. coge (160 comments) says:

    There are considerable issues when using adjusted data to record temperature. This is especially true when adjustments are made in an attempt to counter the effects of urban warming. The atmosphere is a vast chaotic system, this is why computer models are unable to simulate it’s behavior. Apart from in the occasional random way. Similarly the effects of urban warming are subject to chaotic variables, which interact in innumerable ways with each other. This is how NIWA & Australia’s BoM have fudged up their data. Furthermore if such adjustment computer models are created with an assumption that AGW warming is actually occurring, it makes an even bigger hash of what should be a relatively simple job.

    In terms of sea level rises on Tuvalu, it’s a coral atoll. In essence it sits on top of a living organism, which responds & grows to the sea level. Interestingly there are no climate change refugees leaving Tuvalu, but plenty of economic ones. As is common for some other pacific islands. Also practical human coastline management applies to Tuvalu as it does anywhere else, to protect from natural erosion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @SC

    “Still, it just makes you reflect upon how lucky we are to exist at all. Conditions seem to have almost conspired to produce us if you choose to take an anthropocentric view of things….”

    The “Goldilocks principle”
    Ofcourse then there is the Chicken or the egg causality dilemma.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    “But despite this solar minimum, the 12 month period from June 2009 to May 2010 WAS THE HOTTEST 12 MONTH PERIOD EVER RECORDED.
    Doesn’t that tell you something Andy?”

    It tells me that are easily minipulated.
    Think about it, why focus on the “12 month period from June 2009 to May 2010″ and nor on the “12 month period from June 2010 to May 2011″?
    This is because the data of this period fits the narative.
    You need to look at the trend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Other Andy says:- “You need to look at the trend.”

    Glad you said that. Second time I’ve put that piece of bait out on this thread.

    I trust you’ll write to Bryan Leyland instructing him on the meaning of the word trend and what constitutes a reliable trend period with regard to the recent slowing in global temperature rise :mrgreen:

    Still, the hottest 12 month period ever recorded was only 18 months ago. Coincidence? Uncanny don’t you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. slijmbal (1,134 comments) says:

    If there was real scientific evidence that significant temperature changes are caused by CO2 then we would not be having this dialogue. We are basing billion dollar decisions on what is, in effect, a giant computer program that hasn’t been historically accurate yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. fatnuts (164 comments) says:

    “12 month period ever recorded was only 18 months ago”

    According to the graph in the post 2010 was 3rd equal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    “Thing is, you want to throw one ball into the air and catch it. You might want to learn how to juggle”

    You’re clearly not an economist and it seems to be distorting your thinking. Governments can only spend so much. If they could spend whatever they wanted to, we would have more spending on health, education and welfare, etc.

    You seem to know more than some of the top economists who have indicated where their priorities lie. Since your beloved project is near the bottom of the list, the economists must be wrong. You’re a true denier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. PaulL (5,776 comments) says:

    Part of the reason it’s hard to have a sensible conversation is that people hold such widely varying views. On this thread I see people who believe:
    1. That CO2 isn’t a material greenhouse gas – that it’s not driving warming at all
    2. That CO2 is driving warming, but it’s not human caused
    3. That the world isn’t warming at all
    4. That the world is warming, but not as much as claimed
    5. That the world was warming, but not any more
    6. That the world is warming, but there’s not much we can do about it, nor is it a big problem, there are other things to deal with
    7. That the world is warming, there’s not much we can do about it and we’ll need to set of H-bombs to fix it (rather than pumping a small amount of S02 into the upper atmosphere as has been calculated is enough to reverse the warming – but I guess that’s not doomsday enough)
    8. That the world is warming, and somehow a poorly implemented and partially implemented climate agreement will fix it
    9. That the world is warming, and that we’ll all need to go back to riding bicycles and living in communes

    Really impossible to extract the signal from the noise here. For my part, I’m in the category that says:
    – the world is warming, it is driven by CO2, that CO2 is of human origin
    – the warming we’ve had to date isn’t as high as the measurements purport – many of these measurements have corrections and massaging that make them dubious. There is some warming, just not quite so much as claimed
    – warming won’t have the positive feedbacks claimed, therefore it will add up to less than claimed – I reckon around 1 degree by 2100
    – as such, it isn’t a massive problem, but to the extent we can do low cost things to avoid it we should. For example, not subsidising oil usage in poor countries
    – Kyoto and similar agreements aren’t low cost, and have little impact
    – allowing proven low carbon technologies that are economic could have an impact (for example, nuclear, which provides 60%+ of France’s power)
    – messing around with “renewables” is a waste of time and a retrograde step for civilisation in general – it won’t allow the chinese and indians to lift themselves out of poverty
    – in general technology is the answer, not the problem, and the luddites on the green side of the spectrum who think we should all go back to communes are completely on the wrong track – that will never happen, so if that’s their solution they may as well give up now
    – the world has far more pressing problems that would benefit from more attention – for example proper free trade that could lift the third world out of poverty

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    fatnuts says:- “According to the graph in the post 2010 was 3rd equal”

    I did stipulate the period June 2009 to May 2010. That is not a period recorded on the chart. Beside the point anyway. I was essentially drawing attention to the idea of long term trend.
    _________________________________________________________________________________________

    ross says:- “You seem to know more than some of the top economists who have indicated where their priorities lie.”

    Of course I don’t. And I have every right to disagree with how they choose to prioritize their moral imperatives. That is an ethical debate, not an economic one.

    And as for disagreeing with experts, I don’t agree with Einstein’s rejection of quantum mechanics, but it doesn’t mean I’m stupid enough to think I’m within a million miles of his level of genius.

    Rather than trying to diminish me with your arguments Ross, how about sticking to the issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. fatnuts (164 comments) says:

    “the hottest year on record” was the point you chose to capitalise.

    CRU go on to say: “The years 2003, 2005 and 2010 are only distinguishable in the third decimal place. The error estimate for individual years (two standard errors is about ±0.1°C, see Brohan et al., 2006) is at least ten times larger than the differences between these three years.”

    And: “The warmth or coldness of individual years is strongly influenced by whether there was an El Niño or a La Niña event occurring in the equatorial Pacific Ocean”

    The trend shown in the graph clearly shows a plateau occuring now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    “I trust you’ll write to Bryan Leyland instructing him on the meaning of the word trend and what constitutes a reliable trend period with regard to the recent slowing in global temperature rise.”

    Bait?
    Hardly.
    Our recent Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming (with ups and downs) its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age.
    This is only the third time in geological history that temperatures have been this cold on Earth.
    So it is probably inevitable that in the next few 1000 years the temperature will go up, no matter what humans will do.
    The focus however is on the shorter term.
    At the moment the trend is down and we might go down another temporary cooling period as it has done with regular intervals over the last 18.000 years.
    If you are saying that the long term temperature trend (18.000 years) is going up then you are correct. NOBODY is disputing that.
    Now convince me that this 18.000 year trend is caused by humans or can be stopped by humans by reducing greenhouse gasses by 0.117%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    PaulL says:- “the warming we’ve had to date isn’t as high as the measurements purport – many of these measurements have corrections and massaging that make them dubious. There is some warming, just not quite so much as claimed”

    As I’ve stated previously on this thread, it’s trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data and taking into account other variables – like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity – not by cherry-picking single points.

    There’s also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can perhaps give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance. Due to their immense size and heat storing capability they tend to give a much more ‘steady’ indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there’s no signs of it slowing any time soon.

    The following simple graph illustrates the point beautifully:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    fatnuts says:- “the hottest year on record” was the point you chose to capitalise.

    Yes. 12 months is a year. One circuit of the sun. Where you choose to start counting on the orbital cycle is completely up to you.

    >>”The trend shown in the graph clearly shows a plateau occuring now.”

    That isn’t a trend. See my other posts regarding what constitutes a trend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Yoza (1,353 comments) says:

    @OtherAndy 8.31: “For people like Yoza, science is not about the truth, it is about consensus, echoing what others have said before him.”

    Scientific enquiry is about explaining observable phenomena and ideas in such a way that others can investigate and verify for themselves the validity of those explanations. Scientific consensus occurs when repeated observation and experiment of phenomena and ideas coalesce into understanding. What the AGW-deniers present as science is, more often than not, anecdote and speculation.

    There is no controversy surrounding the science of anthropogenic global warming, there is a massive PR campaign run by those who have a vested interest in extracting profits from environmentally destructive processes. The vast majority of credible scientists accept the science backing AGW, TheScorned at 12:28am proposition that only 77 scientists believe such a thing as anthropogenic global warming is, quite possibly, the stupidest thing I have ever read from an AGW-denier.

    “If you are not one of us, you are one of those evil people or as Bush said: “If you are not for us, you are against us.”” Bush is on your side on this one, other_Andy, he is an AGW-denier.- weird example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. fatnuts (164 comments) says:

    Scott, I’ve seen your other posts, most of which link to Wikipedia for support. Doesn’t do much for the credibility of your argument.

    And of course the black line is a ‘trend’, it’s just not one that agrees with the point you make.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Yoza…

    What the AGW-deniers present as science is, more often than not, anecdote and speculation.

    So, you think that String theory as a science is not speculation, huh? Tell me if it is or is not? What’s the physical meaning of complex mass number in Tachyon? The math says so.

    Here is a fact. It is just mathematical speculation pure and simple.

    Do you have a background in science? Or perhaps you’re just spouting nonsense on something that you have no clue about? I’m talking about numerical modeling because it is what I do for a living and I know from first hand experience that computer models that I implement turned out to be inconsistent with observations most of the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    Yoza

    I suggest you read the other posts on this thread, you might learn something.

    “AGW-deniers… and then…..There is no controversy surrounding the science of anthropogenic global warming..”

    You suffer from projection .

    I am not sure if you understand this but consensus doesn’t mean anything to scientists. Consensus is a political term. Good scientists are (and should be) sceptics by nature. As for your assertion that most scientists agree on AGW (Which is debatable in the first place) and it is therefore correct, this is an ‘argumentum ad populum’, a logical fallacy.

    “There is a massive PR campaign run by those who have a vested interest in extracting profits from environmentally destructive processes..”

    Global warming alarmists are funded to the tune of more than $50 billion (in taxpayer money) versus $19 million for skeptics.
    But don’t let the facts get in the way of the narrative.

    Yep Yoza, isn’t it weird when you find out that you exhibit the same one-eyed, extremist mentality as your bogeyman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    fatnuts says:- “your other posts, most of which link to Wikipedia for support”

    Yup I use wikipedia a lot. A brilliant resource, and you know why?

    Because most decent wikipedia articles cite their research. So if you want to refute my assertions, or the author of the wikipage I post a link to is asserting, go to that page and look at the citation. All the research I’ve quoted ultimately comes from thoroughly peer reviewed scientific studies from reputable mainstream academic institutions.

    I challenge you to find one that’s not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    This from Skeptical Science – A brilliant website:

    :arrow: “Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding.”

    :arrow: “However, AGW skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet unquestioningly embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming.”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Yoza, I’ll rephrase my question above.

    If an object A has a mass of 5 kg and another object B has a mass of 5i kg (the “i” here is the complex number sqrt(-1) , the square root of -1), what does it mean physically? Is it a mathematical artifact mistaken as reality or is the complex mass is truly something that corresponds to physical reality as the math & theory tells us? Don’t be fooled by numbers and mathematical speculation because reality is not the same thing as maths.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Bogusnews (425 comments) says:

    From my understanding the link between CO2 emissions and temperature rising is tenuous indeed.

    For example, Co2 is continuing to rise, but there has been no temperature increase for the last 15 years and in fact temperature has fallen over the last 8 years by .05 degrees. I will admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is a very minor gas, about 95% of global warming comes from water vapour, CO2 makes up less than 3%.

    The only place where there is a strong corelation between CO2 and temperature is in the very expensive computer models which even the authors of these complain via email that “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t (kevin Trenberth).”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. fatnuts (164 comments) says:

    Scott, why not source the original research, rather than a web site that editoralises?

    Credibility of data is fundamental. Even our own (NZ) 100 year temperature record is under serious dispute, in a high court case this year. If Government departments are falsifying findings to support the AGW argument, what sources can you trust?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. cha (3,541 comments) says:

    Agreed fatnuts but when the whole thing is wrapped up in ideology credibility seems to have gone out the window along with the bath water..

    http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-02-28-what-we-have-and-havent-learned-from-climategate

    Consider that there have now been five, count ‘em five, inquiries into the matter. Penn State established an independent inquiry into the accusations against scientist Michael Mann and found “no credible evidence” [PDF] of improper research conduct. A British government investigation run by the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee found that while the CRU scientists could have been more transparent and responsive to freedom-of-information requests, there was no evidence of scientific misconduct. The U.K.’s Royal Society (its equivalent of the National Academies) ran an investigation that found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice.” The University of East Anglia appointed respected civil servant Sir Muir Russell to run an exhaustive, six-month independent inquiry; he concluded that “the honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt … We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. wat dabney (3,465 comments) says:

    This from Skeptical Science – A brilliant website

    Ah yes, that’s the thoroughly dishonest alarmist site (with the deliberately misleading name) that was caught re-writing content and then claiming that sceptical commenters hadn’t read their claims properly:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/20/cooking-the-books.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    “However, AGW sceptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet unquestioningly embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming.”

    Writing it (Or finding it on the web) doesn’t make it true.
    And even if it is true the opposite claim can be made as well.
    On the other hand…..
    It is the AG-Warmists job to dispute the arguments, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming and support their own arguments with (un-altered and un-adjusted) data and in an open discussion.
    It is called a scientific argument.

    And, lover of long trends….
    (My previous questions)
    1. Did we start the global warming trend 18,000 years ago?
    2. Is the global warming going to stop after we reduce greenhouse gasses by 0.117% (CO2)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Bogus News says:- “even the authors [Kevin Trenberth] of these complain via email”

    Perfect example of a person who latches on to any so called evidence refuting the existence of AGW, and rejects all the overwhelming scientifically scrutinized evidence supporting it.

    Better ask the man himself. His reply to the hacked email ‘scandal’:

    :arrow: Kevin Trenberth: “It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.” http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

    Next you’ll be saying he’s been bought out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @cha

    Those ‘scientists’ have done science and the scientific argument a huge disservice.
    Everything they say now or publish is looked at with scepticism.
    It is only natural….
    Once bitten, twice shy or Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. cha (3,541 comments) says:

    Fuck em all O-A, I’m going to rely on The Magic Eightball>

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. leftyliberal (632 comments) says:

    @Other_Andy: I believe Yoza was agreeing with you regarding where the money is going – very little is going to the science in this area, the majority into the political hysteria campaigns. After all, there’s a lot of money to be made out of the “solutions”, regardless of their efficacy, and regardless of whether humanity is doomed.

    Scientific consensus does not imply a lack of scepticism – indeed, any scientist wanting to make a name for themselves the first thing to do is disprove the currently accepted consensus. Thus, that the current consensus is in favour of warming does not imply it is correct, it’s just the best hypothesis supported by the theory and available evidence.

    The issue here is not the science, but rather the politics. Disagreeing with the political “solutions” is welcome (it’s hard to agree with them, after all) but there’s little value in attacking the science without actually going to the effort of arguing in the appropriate fora (i.e. the journals).

    Personally I believe we simply have to accept that regardless of the science, the politicians will screw it up anyway, wasting vast quantities of taxpayer funds whilst making not one iota of difference. In the meantime, technology will overcome our dependence on both the amount of energy and the cost of generating that energy cleanly and life will go on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Heck Wat, would you bother reading what a site named, say, “Now Stick This Up The Deniers” had to say?

    Skeptical Science is a perfectly ingenuous and apt name. The dishonesty belongs to the person who refuses to examine all the evidence with an open mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Charles, I’m disappointed with your magic 8 balls.

    I said, “Hello” and it said, “Fuck off and die”

    Try this bot. She’s more friendly and a bit cheeky too:

    http://www.existor.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @leftyliberal

    “Personally I believe we simply have to accept that regardless of the science, the politicians will screw it up anyway, wasting vast quantities of taxpayer funds whilst making not one iota of difference. In the meantime, technology will overcome our dependence on both the amount of energy and the cost of generating that energy cleanly and life will go on.”

    And ain’t that the truth.

    And just for the record, I tend to agree that Global Warming is real. However, in the short term (Next 100 years) there might be a downward trend before it is going up again. What I don’t believe (Looking at the evidence) is that humans are either the cause of this trend or can do anything about it. That doesn’t mean that we do not have to clean up our act though.
    So….
    I am a greenie too.
    I helped planting trees on Tiri and Motuora
    I used to be a Greenpeace member (Before it became a de-facto political party).
    I am a member of the SPCA.
    I am for the development of ‘alternative energy’ and energy conservation.
    I bought a more energy efficient car, use energy saving lightbulbs and grow my own vegetables without the use of pesticides.
    I want the culprits who pollute our rivers and lakes to clean them up and I agree that it is dishonest to privatise the profit and socialise the (environmental) losses.
    But I am not a religious extremist Gaia worshipper with secondary motives, using questionable tactics. And that prevents me from ever becoming a ‘Green Party’ member or supporter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    fatnuts (16) Says:
    January 7th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
    Scott, I’ve seen your other posts, most of which link to Wikipedia for support. Doesn’t do much for the credibility of your argument.

    And thats because that particular commentator hasn’t had an original thought since Adam was a boy. Go to any thread on any topic and he becomes the instant expert in 5 minutes via Wikipedia. Tiresome ,we all know

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Nah eastbay, I debate the issues. And I use references to back up my assertions.

    Like a few of stupid fuckwits on this site you attack the person.

    Once a stupid pig, always a stupid pig.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    And a further point. Until 3.11 this thread consisted of over 100 comments debating a contentious issue. Aside from eastbays earlier dig about religion the debate had been reasonable.

    And then along comes the same bitter old fuck with a chip on his shoulder and wrecks the thread.

    S l o w h a n d c l a p.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Bogusnews (425 comments) says:

    Scott Chris:

    If the case for global warming is so air tight, so strong and well accepted then why did 31,487 American scientist including 9,029 sign a petition (www.petitionproject.org) saying:

    “We urge the United States to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997 and any other similar proposals. the proposed limits of greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology and damage the health and well being of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial affects on the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    Regarding the qualifications of the signers they say:

    “All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.”

    There doesn’t seem to be too much grey area in that petition. Makes it very hard for me to believe the evidence is as clear and well proven in lab as many have us believe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. john.bt (170 comments) says:

    Last August we had some serious snow and the MetService staff were so happy that they predicted it a few days out that they were seen jumping for joy. Spokesman Bob McDavitt was quoted saying “When you talk about the future, nobody really knows what’s going to happen”.

    In the meantime, population growth means that in around the next three years it will have increased by the entire population of the US of A. And who needs another America ?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Bogusnews – regarding the petition project:

    :arrow: “Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition. Of that 11, only one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an “informal evaluation”.

    The problem with the petition Bogus apart from the findings in the above extract, is that any bugger could sign it claiming to be a scientist, and many signed it multiple times. Is Michael J Fox a scientist? Or Geri Halliwell? They signed it too…..

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. ben (2,386 comments) says:

    The influential but ludicrous Stern Report showed the contortions that are required to make climate change worth responding to in economic terms: basically if you assume near-zero discount rate and a very high carbon price and the worst possible do-nothing case (=very high economic growth in developing countries!) then and only then does climate change become worth responding to, at least according to Stern.

    Compared to a gradually changing climate, the greater danger by far is government run amok, which is precisely what the AGW crowd calls for. Any calculation of the cost of “do nothing” should include a downwards adjustment for the very substantial value of smaller government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Royal Society
    http://royalsociety.org/climate-change/?gclid=CK7bjq6Wva0CFWdLpgodC2tEBA

    It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.

    Whilst the extent of climate change is often expressed in a single figure – global temperature – the effects of climate change (such as temperature, precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events) will vary greatly from place to place.

    Increasing atmospheric CO2 also leads to ocean acidification which risks profound impacts on many marine ecosystems and in turn the societies which depend on them.

    The Society has worked on the issue of climate change for many years to further the understanding of this issue. These activities have been informed by decades of publicly available, peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists across a wide range of disciplines. Climate science, like any other scientific discipline, develops through vigorous debates between experts, but there is an overwhelming consensus regarding its fundamentals. Climate science has a firm basis in physics and is supported by a wealth of evidence from real world observations

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. ben (2,386 comments) says:

    Scott Chris – it isn’t clear why 100 years from now there will be any need to respond to climate change with H bombs. The IPCC says the world will warm by about 2 degrees by then. It has already warmed by about 0.7 degrees since 1850. Our grandchildren will be vastly wealthier than we are and even more well equipped than we are to adapt to the gradual and mild warming forecast by IPCC.

    If you are concerned about boat people, by far the strongest determinant of what we call boat people is not sea levels or temperatures but income levels. No boat people start their journeys from high income economies. Reducing CO2 output is a very, very indirect means of helping boat people. Allowing the economies of poor countries to flourish is a direct way of solving that problem. Eliminating all first world tariffs and agricultural subsidies would be a good start.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Yoza (1,353 comments) says:

    I especially like the first PhD who signed the petition (http://petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php), Earl M. Aagaard, PhD.

    “Dr. Earl Aagaard, of Pacific Union College’s biology department, wrote “The Importance of the Intelligent Design Theory for Seventh-day Adventists.” He invites us to vaccinate ourselves against all seductive materialistic influences and to make it abundantly clear that we accept the Bible account of Creation as true.” http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article.php?id=38

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    Just one question Griff.

    Do you believe that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the dominant cause of the global warming?
    If so, by how much do we need to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gasses?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. fatman43us (165 comments) says:

    The Global Warming Scam has nothing whatever to do with Science. It is simply another tax track for corrupt politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Ben, the 2 degree figure you quote is in mid-range of the optimistic “lowest emissions scenario”

    :arrow: “Climate model projections are summarized in the 2007 AR4 by the IPCC. They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 °C for their *lowest* emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4 °C for their highest. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es-1-mean-temperature.html

    Lowest emissions scenario (B1 in graph link below) amounts to:

    >Rapid economic growth but with rapid changes towards a service and information economy.
    >Population rising to 9 billion in 2050 and then declining.
    >Reductions in material intensity and the introduction of clean and resource efficient technologies.
    >An emphasis on global solutions to economic, social and environmental stability.

    http://www.montana.edu/paleoecology/GEOG302/Assignments/Climate_Change_Exercise/scen_co2_graph2.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. PaulL (5,776 comments) says:

    Scott: a few things to rebut here.

    As I’ve stated previously on this thread, it’s trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data and taking into account other variables – like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity – not by cherry-picking single points.

    There’s also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can perhaps give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance. Due to their immense size and heat storing capability they tend to give a much more ‘steady’ indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there’s no signs of it slowing any time soon.

    As I’ve stated a couple of times on this thread (but I’ll state in more detail), the most accurate measure of the sea temperatures appears to be the argo float data. These floats float around in the ocean, and every few days do a dive to 1000m, and then record temperatures on the way up. Once they surface, they fire off a message with their location and the temperatures recorded. These floats appear to be showing very little warming in the oceans – projection of less than a tenth of a degree over 100 years. wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/31/krige-the-argo-probe-data-mr-spock/

    There isn’t the political will to do anything meaningful about GHG emissions, so things are going to heat up. Then the shit will hit the fan and the boat people will start arriving, only to be blown out of the water by National Navies.

    Then, in an effort to cool things off, H-bombs will be detonated in volcanos to send radioactive ash particles into the stratosphere in order to bring on a mild nuclear winter. This will be an ongoing process, because the particles return to earth after a couple of years, whereas CO2 needs plants such as algae and trees to convert it back to solid organic compounds.

    Sounds crazy to me. Why detonate H-bombs in volcanoes? Why radioactive ash into the stratosphere? Did you just pick the most outlandish possible mechanism to cool the earth?

    There’s actually been a fair bit of research on how we could terraform the earth – deliberately influence the climate. Obviously doing so has a lot of risks, but as you say, no real evidence that anything else is going to work – certainly expecting people to reduce their living standards for some nebulous problem isn’t going to happen. One method that shows a lot of promise is pumping sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere via a few long rubber hoses with balloons on top. Sounds wacky, but surprisingly enough you don’t need many hoses nor much sulphur dioxide to have the desired effect. Better yet, the sulphur dioxide has a relatively short half life, so if you don’t like the results, you can just turn the hoses off and everything goes back as it was in a couple of years. http://intellectualventureslab.com/?p=296

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. slijmbal (1,134 comments) says:

    Considering Malthusian predictions have been made for literally hundreds of years and they never bear fruit. I am sure the odd prediction has been true but they are much more predictably wrong than right (as opposed to the publicised disastrous predictions on temperatures which have always been wrong to date). Acid rain, oxygen depletion through deforestation, genetic engineering, pesticides ….. I didn’t even need to google anything.

    Based on this it is exceedingly reasonable to completely ignore such predictions. They consistently point the way to what actually will not occur.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    other Andy
    I believe that the science behind climate change is sound and that first world humans will adapt to the changing climate.
    the human race needs to decrees its population if it is to survive into the distant future may be climate change will do this.
    I do not believe in lefty redistribution of wealth.
    Unless china and India agree to limit their growth the western world is simply destroying its economies to benefit the developing world

    I have seen no evidence of a technological advance that will give us cheap low impact energy
    The “greens” are more interested in lefty wealth distribution than genuine green technology they are the ones who stop new hydro generation
    We must insure that NZ coal reserves are able to be exploited when we need them. Into the future as oil becomes more expensive our economy will be more at risk of massive trade deficits decreasing our standard of living.

    There is an opening in new Zealand for a progressive green party that does not dabble in Marxist policies and actually examines the science before making policy decision as apposed to the nut-jobs that presently drive the green movement here on gut instinct and pure stupidity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. PaulL (5,776 comments) says:

    grif:

    the human race needs to decrees its population if it is to survive into the distant future may be climate change will do this.

    I think that decreasing population will only happen when the third world becomes first world – all first world countries have birth rates that are below replacement. Unfortunately many first world countries pursue policies that actively keep the third world poor – particularly trade barriers and agricultural subsidies. The fact that these policies also make first world countries poorer just makes it yet more stupid.

    I do not believe in lefty redistribution of wealth.

    Nor do lefties, or they’d be pushing for redistribution to the true poor – those in the third world. What most of them really want is someone else to give them money. Pointing out that even someone on a benefit in NZ is richer than 90% of the world’s population isn’t something that they want to hear.

    I have seen no evidence of a technological advance that will give us cheap low impact energy

    Look into thorium molten salt reactors. Close to limitless raw inputs, passively safe designs (when the power goes off, the reactor cools automatically, and it isn’t under pressure so cannot explode), capable of burning up the radioactive “waste” from existing reactors. At scale, they’d also be cheaper than coal – if it weren’t for all the nimbies that wouldn’t let you build the thing. http://energyfromthorium.com/

    We must insure that NZ coal reserves are able to be exploited when we need them. Into the future as oil becomes more expensive our economy will be more at risk of massive trade deficits decreasing our standard of living.

    NZ is likely to have quite a bit of oil within our territorial limits. We definitely have a lot of gas, and if we genuinely had a trade deficit driven by oil, we could convert much our our transport fleet to gas. Clearly the problem isn’t big enough to justify that solution. Coal is likely to have less use in future, not more. It’s worth a lot now since the Chinese will buy it. In 30 years time it won’t have any particular use – nuclear or other power sources will have taken over stationary power, and coal has no usefulness for transportation, which is the sector that will probably still be using fossil fuels. It will be worth less than today, in my opinion.

    There is an opening in new Zealand for a progressive green party that does not dabble in Marxist policies and actually examines the science before making policy decision as apposed to the nut-jobs that presently drive the green movement here on gut instinct and pure stupidity.

    Yes, and one that works to do some environmental good without automatically opposing anything that makes money, that involves a tradeoff, or otherwise isn’t perfect. A few dams would net be better than not having them – when we don’t have them we burn coal. Getting rid of some land currently (and wastefully) included in the conservation reserve, and in return including some land of higher value, would be a good idea. Working proactively with farmers on water quality, instead of just demonising them, would help. Allowing some commercial logging in return for possum control (the old timberlands scheme) would be great.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    Thanks for the reply Griff but you did not answer the questions.
    As this is all about CO2, I will be a bit more specific and add a few more questions.
    Simple short answers are fine.

    1. Do you believe that anthropogenic CO2 is the dominant cause of the global warming?
    2. If so, by how much do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
    3. How much will the cost of this reduction be for New Zealand?
    4. Will the reduction stop Global Warming and if so, for how long?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    PaulL

    “Coal is likely to have less use in future, not more. It’s worth a lot now since the Chinese will buy it. In 30 years time it won’t have any particular use”

    Ever heard of CTL?

    I have posted this before:

    Australia-New Zealand has the fifth largest reserves of fossil fuel in the world with (approximately) 314.6 Billions of Barrels of Oil Equivalent.
    This includes oil, gas, coal and coal deposits like lignite and shale.
    Australia-New Zealand’s fossil fuel reserves are greater than Saudi Arabia.
    http://blackjackoak.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/which-country-has-the-most-fossil-fuel/

    Through a process called GTL, Gas to Liquid, natural gas can be converted into synthetic fuels (Petrol and diesel)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_to_liquids
    This is not a new process but has recently been improved to make it viable.
    Shell, have technology proven to work on a commercial scale.
    http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/04/arabian-alchemy-shell-makes-black-gold-in-qatar/?singlepage=true
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/615ade02-8f92-11e0-954d-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1ORLidL6o

    Sasol in South Africa uses the same principle (CTL – Coal to Liquids) to refine fuel oils from coal.
    http://www.globalenergymagazine.com/2010/09/sasol-conducts-world%E2%80%99s-first-coal-to-liquids-flight/

    Australia-New Zealand could be energy independent if the Gaia worshippers (Greenies) would allow it.

    Saudi Arabia understands this, admitting that with oil at $100/barrel countries will find an alternative.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/05/29/us.saudi.prince.oil/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    1 yes
    2 no point if China India and the USA do not
    3 see2
    4see 2

    other power sources do not exist at present
    I live on solar and wind power due to the fact that i can not run a lead to my boat on a swing mooring
    its expensive not particularly efficient unreliable and ralitivly time consuming
    nuclear is not happing in nz in the medium term next fifty years due to the risks involved try selling nuclear anything to the new Zealand public

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    Griff

    Thanks
    My answers.

    1. Do you believe that anthropogenic CO2 is the dominant cause of the global warming?

    No. The current percentage of atmospheric CO2 from human activity is 0.117%, and eliminating it will not make any difference whatsoever as 99.99% of greenhouse gasses will still be there and greenhouse gasses are not the cause but an affect of global warming.

    2. If so, by how much do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?

    The current percentage of atmospheric CO2 emissions of New Zealand in the world is 0.11%. This means that if we cut ALL CO2 emissions in NZ, total world CO2 emissions will be cut by 0.00013% which is, well, stuff all.

    3. How much will the cost of this reduction be for New Zealand?

    Obviously, for something that has no affect at all, whatever it is, too much.

    4. Will the reduction stop Global Warming and if so, for how long?

    Global warming won’t stop. Our recent Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming (with ups and downs) its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age.
    No matter how arrogant we are, thinking we can control nature, nature won’t take any notice of us.

    Short term trend (Decades) – possible cooling (the jury is still out on that)
    Medium term trend (Centuries) – warming
    Long term trend (Milleniums) – warming

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    PaulL says:- “These floats appear to be showing very little warming in the oceans – projection of less than a tenth of a degree over 100 years.”

    Well, I’m glad you didn’t go down the “ocean is cooling” track. Yes, it doesn’t seem like much does it? Couple of things to take into account:

    1) Heat transference from the atmosphere to the sea.
    2) The thermal mass of the ocean compared to the atmosphere.

    In short, heat transference only really occurs at the interface between the ocean and the air, as well as with warmer rain falling into the ocean, and because the ocean has a much larger thermal capacity (basically the atomic weight of all the molecules in the sea and verses the air) the translation appears very small. But the important thing *is the steady rise*.

    I won’t quibble with your projected figure of 0.1 degree because although I looked at Hansen’s study, I ain’t gonna read it just to find that one figure. You can if you want, but I suggest you don’t trust the ‘what’s up with that’ website, and make up your own mind: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf

    I do know however that there has been some dispute over the argos data and that has been explored in these two studies:

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2008GL037155.shtml
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/pdf/nature09043.pdf

    With regard to the H bombing volcanos scenario. I was indulging in a little hyperbolic melodramatic fantasy, akin to ‘Dr Strangelove’. I wasn’t being serious. But if it comes down to any kind of particulate solution, I think we’ve fucked up very badly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. PaulL (5,776 comments) says:

    Yes and no. The world seems to have an average temperature substantially colder than today – ice ages and all that. We’re living in a relatively warm period. Warming is a much smaller risk that cooling. This is also true for life in general – far more people die from cold than from hot (funnily enough deaths from heat get reported – cause of global warming). Plants grow better, the world is generally a more pleasant place when it’s warmer. A couple of degrees, despite all the excitement, isn’t really going to change much.

    Nuclear power will eventually be proven as the solution. If you look at the energy intensity of the various forms of energy man has used, we move from wood -> coal -> oil -> gas. Each step has higher energy intensity. Nuclear has orders of magnitude greater energy intensity. Renewables, on the other hand, don’t. They’re a retrograde step. If the greenies hadn’t gotten in the way we’d have progressed beyond bespoke 3rd gen nuclear reactors into standardised, reliable and cheap mass produced reactors. Fossil fuels would be simply too expensive to bother burning. To a large extent the greenies have caused this problem, and are now trying to change direction – but it’s too late – we’ve lost 3-4 decades of development that should have occurred in the nuclear space.

    Anyway, enough of this. It will eventually prove itself. There will not be any meaningful global co-ordinated action. The developing countries promised to negotiate a treaty by 2020 just to keep the developed countries on the hook – hoping for that fund that was promised to go to developing countries. When the treaty negotiation actually comes around, firstly the level of warming will not have been anything like the models predicted, and secondly it will be clear that no co-ordinated action is likely or possible. And hopefully by then some technological solutions to low carbon energy will have presented themselves – and not “solutions” like driving a Toyota Prius with an expected useful life of about 8 years (junk your car every 8 years – now that’s good for the environment).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. John Ansell (861 comments) says:

    PaulL: thanks for all your comments here.

    I have no idea who you are or what you do, but your clear explanations and reasoned assertions are the highlight of this thread – and many others to which you contribute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Yoza (1,353 comments) says:

    “To a large extent the greenies have caused this problem, and are now trying to change direction – but it’s too late – we’ve lost 3-4 decades of development that should have occurred in the nuclear space.”

    This is the kind of utter bollocks the extreme right try to pass of as reasoned argument, this has a parallel with that nutter Sarah Palin who blamed environmentalists for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Her argument was that if environmentalists hadn’t made it so difficult for oil companies to drill in national parks and the like these same companies wouldn’t be forced to drill in the more hazardous conditions offered by deep sea operations. Completely barking, when considering the ease with which energy companies are allowed to indulge in something as environmentally destructive as fracking where ever they want

    Corporate arrogance, which manifests in contempt for public safety, has led to populations everywhere being very wary of any ‘solution’ which has the primary function of providing a profit to ruling elite interests. The general population understands only too well that any losses and risks associated with these projects will be borne by the tax-payer. Furthermore, they will see their governments subsidise the construction of these operations then later be expected to pay through the nose in energy bills as the power plant owners profit gouge captive populations.

    Letting corporations, through a robotic business class, dictate public policy is the problem, blaming greenies is feeble.

    I have no problem with the development of nuclear power, as long as it is completely within public control, as any public utility should be, and it can be proven to be as safe as more conventional forms of energy production.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    The political division over climate change is fascinating. This is science after all and the consensus view in the scientific community is definitely supports the AGW is happening (although it can’t be considered proven until after the fact). People’s views on most other scientific matters are relatively non partisan yet this is exceptional.
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/09/american-public-opinion-and-climate-change

    It kind of makes some sense in the United States where a large chunk of the right wingers are also deeply religious and already oppose other (consensus but unproven) scientific theories like how the world was created or how human beings evolved. But my experience of kiwi’s is that most right wingers are reasonably rational and pro-science except on this one matter.

    I think the problem with AGW is that it is a classic commons dilemma requiring coordinated government action because the unconstrained free market will not solve this on it’s own. Other commons type problems like the limited capacity of fish or trees on the planet have all required government intervention to manage even if the solution used (like the quota management system) is market based. I think what scares people is this is potentially very big interventions required and understandably that wants people to make sure that the science is right and that the solutions are workable. But the counter argument is that the science is pretty clear and the solutions are clear (pricing carbon then letting the market figure it out) leaving it too long will require much bigger interventions down the line and if the magnifier effects are upwards rather than downwards the interventions might need to be more drastic.

    The solution I’d like to see is a fixed price tax per tonne of CO2 or CO2 equivalent introduced at a low level and increasing annually. The proceeds of the tax go to a ring fenced fund which is paid out to all taxpayers as a regular dividend. This means that the tax is neutral in impact (the cheque the average person receives would be about equal to the additional price of good and services and drives all the right behaviors. There would be a tax rebate for exporters for products exported to countries that do not have a carbon price, pro-rated for countries that have a lower carbon price (this bits easy) and a corresponding import levy products that have a high CO2 input (this bit would be tricky – but necessary not to kill our exporters).
    http://www.carbontax.org/

    The problem with the current scheme in my view is that the tax is being levied on polluters and paid to forestry and windpower etc. There is no relief for the consumers to whom the tax is charged indirectly which limits the level the carbon price can rise to. If the purpose of the carbon price is to change behaviour then by definition people need to ‘feel the pain’ in their spending decisions. A carbon price without a rebate is just pain without gain and makes the average person worse off (assuming the average person doesn’t own forests or wind farms). The solution of the current government is to levy a carbon charge but subsidise it to the tune of 90%. This is nonsense – it means that the power companies are not passing on costs (and changing behaviour via the price signal) because our right wing government has socialised the costs onto every taxpayer in the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    BTW
    Other_Andy is correct on coal to liquids.

    It’s an effective method of creating transport fuels that is far more GHG intensive than burning either coal or oil on their own.

    Hitler pioneered the mass application of it in WW2 when the Germans needed to run their war machine but couldn’t import ready quantities of oil and I believe South Africa started doing it under the apartheid govts years ago.

    It is economic at roughly $100 a barrel.

    This makes rubbish of the claims from Peak Oil alarmists that oil will reach several hundred dollars a barrel and stay there – that would only happen if the whole world had got their act together and applied a sufficiently high and universally applied carbon price, that made widescale implementation of Coal to Liquids prohibitive.

    It’s a worrying prospect for anybody who believes the IPCC that climate change is happening and the IEA that peak oil is approaching in the next 10-20 years.

    Of course coal will also run out (especially if we use it much more for making liquids) but probably not for another hundred years or so – by which time the atmosphere may be FUBAR.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Bogusnews (425 comments) says:

    Scott Chris,

    Yes, Michael J Fox is a scientist who coincidentally has the same name as the actor. I must look up the Scientific American article you quoted to see if they mentioned it because that particular claim came from Greenpeace. On this topic Scientific American has tended to use very dodgy sources so I’ll be interested to see where that came from. In fact I’d go so far as to say Scientific American have long been a mouth piece for AGW and I do not give much credibility to their views.

    But let’s say that petition is worthless. That’s fine, because there are plenty of others. Another petition has been signed by over 1000 scientists who most certainly are qualified. Some of the highlights of that petition include:

    “We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

    “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

    “In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

    It is increasingly difficult to trust the “science” and the scientists who put it forward. Here’s just two examples why, I’ve read “the delinquent teenager mistaken for the worlds top climate scientist”, that along with the letter written by Professor Sietz on the utter scam of the 1997 IPPC report makes sober reading. Then there is the letter written by professor Hal Lewis as to why after 60 years he has tendered his resignation from the American Physics Society. He calls AGW the greatest pseudo scientific scam he has seen in his long life as a scientist. His comments on the effect money has had on the scientific effort are particularly concerning, in fact he expresses outrage at what he feels is financially motivated fraud corrupting fellow scientists.

    So Scott, when you say this is well proven, established, everyone agrees – then sorry, but I am extremely skeptical.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    BogusNews says:- “when you say this is well proven, established, everyone agrees – then sorry, but I am extremely skeptical.”

    I don’t say that at all. When making predictions about anything, there is a degree of uncertainty, summed up in the quote you used:

    >>“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp

    He’s right. The statistical probability that global warming was attributable to human activity was considered ‘likely’ at 66% in 2001. In 2007, that probability has firmed up to ‘highly likely’ at >90%.

    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02/ipcc_climate_wa.html

    Mind you, Tom Tripp is an idiot. Whilst what he is saying is technically correct, the way he phrased it vague, ambiguous and misleading. That in itself is bad science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. kiwiBuzz (4 comments) says:

    1988 was a typo for 1998.

    According to the satellite records, sea levels have dropped slightly over the last few years.

    Using straight line trends for something that varies all the time, is not good practice.

    Consensus views are worthless in science and important on politics. In science one piece of evidence can destroy years of consensus.

    The fact that CO2 has increased and there has been no significant warming for 10-15 years proves that man-made CO2 does not cause dangerous global warming.

    Bryan Leyland

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Richard29 says:- “I think the problem with AGW is that it is a classic *commons dilemma* requiring coordinated government action because the unconstrained free market will not solve this on it’s own.” [emphasis mine]

    You’ve hit the nail on the head. Something purist free marketeers often fail to factor in is the fact that some resources are finite and irreplaceable.

    And no one likes to be told what to do by a bunch of bureaucrats, especially when they don’t trust them. You can forgive your average Joe for thinking that way, but the powerful vested interests have no excuse in acquiescing to, and even cultivating misinformation in order to attain their own selfish ends. A large portion of the political right in the United States should hang their heads in shame.

    Unfortunately they are generally held ‘accountable’ by your average Joe, who can’t see past his immediate self interest. It is time that they be held accountable by the judiciary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Scott Chris said…

    Mind you, Tom Tripp is an idiot. Whilst what he is saying is technically correct, the way he phrased it vague, ambiguous

    but Scott Chris stated the following preceding the one above…

    human activity was considered ‘likely’ at 66% in 2001. In 2007, that probability has firmed up to ‘highly likely’ at >90%

    which is clearly vague.

    Why are you calling Mr Tripp as an idiot for saying vague statement while in fact you’ve just stated a vague one as well, which I have just pasted above?

    So, when others are making vague statements they’re idiots but when you do, then its not idiotic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Bogusnews (425 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    “Highly likely to 90%?” says who? There are only 52 scientists working on the IPCC reports, 20x less than the 1000 who say it most certainly is not highly likely.

    now of course I know this is science which means consensus is irrelevant, but my point is, how can we trust these guys?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    kiwibuzz (Brian Leyland says):- “The fact that CO2 has increased and there has been no significant warming for 10-15 years proves that man-made CO2 does not cause dangerous global warming.”

    That statement sums up your depth of knowledge [or lack thereof] on the subject of climate science and the appropriate application of statistical probability.

    Start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_estimation

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Scott Chris…

    I think the problem with AGW is that it is a classic *commons dilemma* requiring coordinated government action because the unconstrained free market will not solve this on it’s own

    What’s your evidence?

    Have you read the following, which I have posted here on Kiwiblog previously? Take a look at the following pre-print.

    Self-organized global control of carbon emissions by Neil F Johnson, et al. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications (2009), Volume: 389, Issue: 17.

    So, are you saying that unconstrained free markets can’t work?

    PS : I know that you’re a fan of peer review studies, the paper above is a peer reviewed one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi

    My reference for the *commons dilemma* is Richard29, as he was the one I was quoting. Perhaps he would be kind enough to expand on that subject.

    >>”Self-organized global control of carbon emissions”

    I see the problem with this, as with any self organizing system, is that if long term adverse consequences are not immediately factored in, then the will be ignored until it is too late. Rapa Nui/Easter Island is a classic example of a self organizing system that consumed itself.

    And you know as well as I do that talking in terms of statistical probability is accurately vague. [Yes, it's an oxymoron].

    >>”So, are you saying that unconstrained free markets can’t work?”

    They only work perfectly in theory. Like climate models ironically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Scott, Easter Island’s demise happened because of Tragedy of the Commons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    Sorry – for anybody not sure what a commons dilemma is:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons_dilemma

    If the common field is collectively owned then it is in my interest to graze more cattle/sheep than my fair share because I gain the benefit but the costs are shared collectively.

    In this instance the commons is the global atmosphere, the grazing is CO2 emissions and the capacity of the grass is the level of CO2 the atmosphere can sustain without seriously changing our climate and screwing up farming, rising sea levels and displacing lots of people etc. Some scientists reckon this level is 350ppm some say it’s 550ppm.

    The actual level that is a problem is unknown and unknowable and kind of immaterial. All we really need to understand is that there is a level at which we are likely to run into problems and therefore it would be prudent to agree a mechanism by which we can control or reduce the amount we are increasing that level.

    Its a fairly simple and obvious problem. We’ve already encountered it (and to a great extent addressed it) with our domestic fisheries. We could fight all day over the exact level of fish in the sea around NZ, what is a sustainable maximum etc. Fisheries science is just as vague and unpredictable as climate science. Thankfully (as I like eating fish) we don’t have ‘fisheries depletion deniers’ going round telling us that because the science is not settled we should have no system in place and do absolutely nothing until 100% of scientists can 100% agree on the exact number of fish in the ocean and exactly how many can be taken each year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Richard C NZ (9 comments) says:

    David, (with respect) tacking the 3mm satellite sea level trend onto the 2mm tide guage trend and calling it an “acceleration” (not quoting you here) is BS.

    I pointed this out in comments under Leyland’s article:-

    Nonentity #37 07:17 pm Jan 06 2012

    Matt #31, the 3mm rise is from the TOPEX/Jason satellite but the 2mm is from tide guages – you’re splicing disparate datasets. Worse, the TOPEX/Jason data suffers from an inexplicable bulge north of Australia that the tide guages are not detecting which distorts the global record but even then there is a deceleration in the TOPEX/Jason series this century. The recent and more sophisticated Envisat shows sea falling now.

    The SEAFRAME project (CSIRO) tide guages clearly show sea level flat at Tuvalu and Kiribati for the last half dozen years or so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. PaulL (5,776 comments) says:

    Brian:

    The fact that CO2 has increased and there has been no significant warming for 10-15 years proves that man-made CO2 does not cause dangerous global warming.

    No, it doesn’t. As you can see on this thread I think there are a lot of inaccuracies in the doomsday predictions of global warming, but just because I somewhat agree with your conclusion doesn’t mean I agree with your argument!!

    Imagine a world where the temperature fluctuates regularly. Imagine it runs on a 30 year cycle, 15 years warming, 15 years cooling (if it suits you, call the warming years “el nino dominated”, and the cooling years “la nina dominated”). Imagine that someone superimposes over that normal pattern a gradual warming. What happens? We see 15 years of rapid warming, followed by 15 years of no warming. Followed again by 15 years of rapid warming.

    Not saying that is definitely what is happening, but I am saying that a hiatus in warming is not evidence that CO2 doesn’t cause warming – your statement is simply wrong. The physics on that is pretty clear, CO2 does cause warming. The amount of that warming is in question, the fact that it causes warming is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. PaulL (5,776 comments) says:

    John Ansell: thanks for your kind words. Appreciated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Bogusnews (425 comments) says:

    PaulL

    While you are correct I think you missed the point.

    First, yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas which causes a very minor warming effect. The question of course is does an increase in CO2 cause an increase in temperature? Is there a point where increases in CO2 have neglible or virtually zero effect? All the evidence I’ve seen shows the warming effect soon peaks and large increases in CO2 have little or no further effect on temperature.

    You are completely correct that there are millions of other factors that influence temperature, but the point is, this is not what we are being told. The primary thing we are constantly told is man made CO2 is massively, and dangerously changing the climate. What Brian is saying about that theory then is absolutely correct. If man made CO2 is so dangerous that we all must massively change our lives and pay huge additional taxes, but there is no global warming with increasing CO2, then the theory we are being told is nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. kiwiBuzz (4 comments) says:

    PaulL

    Note that I said DANGEROUS global warming. I agree that it may cause some and the fact that natural cycles – that the climate models failed to predict (why??) – were stronger proves that it does not cause dangerous warming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    kiwibuzz says:- “I agree that it may cause some and the fact that natural cycles – that the climate models failed to predict (why??)”

    One word. Chaos. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Weather patterns are sensitive to initial conditions and are therefore hard to predict. You won’t know an El Nino is coming more than a year out for example, but you will know they occur every few years. Depends which butterfly flapped its wings.

    Same with solar radiance. It works on a vague 8 to 14 year cycle, but we are currently experiencing a prolonged solar minimum, and no one could have predicted that with our current state of knowledge.

    Global warming is different however. The forcing effect of GHGs is not sensitive to initial conditions and is therefore easier to predict.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Australis (99 comments) says:

    PaulL (4,346): You are overlooking the fact that the sole IPCC argument for human attribution is that the warming during the second half of the 20th century was well correlated with increases of atmospheric CO2 during that period. If the correlation was a flash in the pan, then there’s nothing at all to tie any warming to CO2.

    Another factor is that the whole shebang turns on the reliability of the GCMs. They have never been verified and we are asked to take their future ‘projections’ on trust. in 2001, the average projection of all 19 GCMs was that we would experience a linear increase at the rate of 0.2°C/decade. It didn’t happen, so we know the models are seriously flawed. Ergo, no dangerous AGW.

    Of course it’s possible that the last 15 years were a hiccup. But to catch up for the big pause, the planet will need to warm at the rate of 0.4Ç for the next 15 years. That’s a helluva change of pace, and nobody seems to believe it is the slightest bit likely.

    Now, Scott Chris would have us believe that the earth changed its mind around the end of the century and decided to transfer all the heat from the troposphere and hide it in the sea. By what mechanism? – try warming a bath by putting ten radiator heaters in your bathroom! And why can’t the ARGOS buoys find this hidden heat? Ask the Royal Society: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1004/S00028.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. kiwiBuzz (4 comments) says:

    Chris Scott

    So the climate has natural and unpredictable cycles. I agree. So we don’t need manmade global warming to explain the heating between 1995 and 1998. Or is all warming due to MMGW and all cooling due to natural cycles?

    But have a look at what Scafetta has to say. His model on natural cycles has done quite well over the last 11 years.

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_models_comparison_ATP.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Brian, I’m about 1/3 rd thru the paper and its interesting.

    Scott Chris, I suggest you read the peer reviewed paper from Dr. Scafetta that Brian Leyland cited above, because citing Wikipedia info is not deep/good/thorough enough since it is not peer reviewed. Note, Equation 4 in Scafetta’s paper, which is a quadratic equation (polynomial degree of order 2) fitting, the type of regression that I mentioned in my previous post further up on this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.