Man Based Global Warming....

Antarctic ice shelf crumbling into icebergs

 

A little something for the AGW zealots of the Climate Change Church:

Paul SheehanSydney Morning Herald
April 13, 2009

What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years. Perhaps what I have written can withstand this questioning. Perhaps not. The greater question is, am I - and you - capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits? Let’s see.
The subject of this column is not small. It is a book entitled Heaven And Earth, which will be published tomorrow. It has been written by one of Australia’s foremost Earth scientists, Professor Ian Plimer. He is a confronting sort of individual, polite but gruff, courteous but combative. He can write extremely well, and Heaven And Earth is a brilliantly argued book by someone not intimidated by hostile majorities or intellectual fashions.

The book’s 500 pages and 230,000 words and 2311 footnotes are the product of 40 years’ research and a depth and breadth of scholarship. As Plimer writes: “An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.”

The most important point to remember about Plimer is that he is Australia’s most eminent geologist. As such, he thinks about time very differently from most of us. He takes the long, long view. He looks at climate over geological, archaeological, historical and modern time. He writes: “Past climate changes, sea-level changes and catastrophes are written in stone.”

Much of what we have read about climate change, he argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as “primitive”. Errors and distortions in computer modelling will be exposed in time. (As if on cue, the United Nations’ peak scientific body on climate change was obliged to make an embarrassing admission last week that some of its computer models were wrong.)

Plimer does not dispute the dramatic flux of climate change - and this column is not about Australia’s water debate - but he fundamentally disputes most of the assumptions and projections being made about the current causes, mostly led by atmospheric scientists, who have a different perspective on time. “It is little wonder that catastrophist views of the future of the planet fall on fertile pastures. The history of time shows us that depopulation, social disruption, extinctions, disease and catastrophic droughts take place in cold times … and life blossoms and economies boom in warm times. Planet Earth is dynamic. It always changes and evolves. It is currently in an ice age.”

If we look at the last 6 million years, the Earth was warmer than it is now for 3 million years. The ice caps of the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland are geologically unusual. Polar ice has only been present for less than 20 per cent of geological time. What follows is an intense compression of the book’s 500 pages and all their provocative arguments and conclusions:

Is dangerous warming occurring? No.

Is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability? No.

The Earth’s climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth’s climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

“To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable - human-induced CO2 - is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science.”

Over time, the history of CO2 content in the atmosphere has been far higher than at present for most of time. Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise. It does not create a temperature rise. CO2 is not a pollutant. Global warming and a high CO2 content bring prosperity and longer life.

The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology. “But evidence no longer matters. And any contrary work published in peer-reviewed journals is just ignored. We are told that the science on human-induced global warming is settled. Yet the claim by some scientists that the threat of human-induced global warming is 90 per cent certain (or even 99 per cent) is a figure of speech. It has no mathematical or evidential basis.”

Observations in nature differ markedly from the results generated by nearly two dozen computer-generated climate models. These climate models exaggerate the effects of human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere because few of the natural variables are considered. Natural systems are far more complex than computer models.

The setting up by the UN of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 gave an opportunity to make global warming the main theme of environmental groups. “The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists.”
Ian Plimer is not some isolated gadfly. He is a prize-winning scientist and professor. The back cover of Heaven And Earth carries a glowing endorsement from the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, who now holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. Numerous rigorous scientists have joined Plimer in dissenting from the prevailing orthodoxy.

Heaven And Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.

{bold areas are made so by this humble servant of CO2}

 

Have you read this book? Do you understand the fundamentals behind global warming (the molecules and energy flows) and how to detect AGW factors and how to spot CO2 derived from human activities? Can you tell me how to account for all the the extra CO2 humans emit if it is not going into the atmoshpere and what instead is causing the atmospheric CO2 levels to rise? I'd also like you to explain why the troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling down just as would be predicted by global warming.

I'm only asking because if you plan to enter this kind of arguement I hope you have the basics down otherwise it will look like you are simply :cheer2: for your favorite political party and their agendas.

 

Humans Halfway to Causing Dangerous Climate Change | Wired Science

 

This book has not yet been released and is not available until May for the average reader. I have not read it. What I have done is post a review from someone who has been a believer in AGW and some of the conclusions drawn by the IPCC. Have you read the entirety of this review before questioning me?

He at least has the intellecual integrity to question his views when confronted with thought-provoking objections to AGW from a most well-qualified critic of the scientifically unsupportable conclusions drawn by the IPCC and its uncritical adherents.

There are certainly plenty of folks here who have entered this argument without the least bit of critical thinking or knowlege of the basic facts. Why do you assume that I am unaware of the basics of the argument? Simply because I disagree with your views?

Let me ask you some questions. Are you aware that global average temperature stopped rising in 2001? Are you aware as of 2009, there are only 38 to 39 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions another five years to raise that total by 1 molecule, to 40 out of every 100,000 molecules? We can start there if you like.

 

You can't deny cars create bad pollution - and I don't think of CO2 as bad. I dare you to breathe in close to any tailpipe of any running car.

Even the Prius stinks when the ICE is running and I'm near the muffler outside in back of the car. However, it's LESS stinging that my other car, a Toyota Yaris.

I just could not afford two Prius, and I want to change the Yaris to a Mitsubishi iMIEV in three years.
So my daily commute will be electric - thus zero airborne pollution contribution - and longer weekend trips I will use the Prius.

Also it's a simple fact that PZEV exhaust systems - available for ALL NEW CARS since the year 2000 (but never offered - extra 500$ cost - peanuts for luxury or SUV cars) reduce not only CO2 but the other nasties.

So the CO2 measure is a good one, because the other trace gasses, like CO and particulates, follows the CO2 output curve.

Had the California clean air act not been overruled by the auto industry (Toyota included sued against it) - which just wanted a better pollution control system from the manufacturers - perhaps in summer 2009, the smog in LA would be half as bad.

Since many people change their cars after five years, and are the heavy usage drivers, if five years ago or more, PZEV exhaust systems would have been a LAW in California, just imagine the difference in airborne pollution it would have made.

So a V6 Honda Accord that pollutes six times worse than a Prius in CO2, CO & other nasty trace gasses and particulates, would only pollute 50% more than a Prius with a PZEV exhaust system.
(V6 versus V4)

Now also factor the less gas usage of the Prius, or of any hybrid when that owner chooses a V4 + HSD over a V6. Just getting crude, making gasoline and trucking it to gas stations has an impact on the environment in raw pollution.

Even a large hybrid SUV that might only save 10% in gallons consumed - that 10% is huge when multiplied across all hybrid owners, versus had those owners bought regular non-hybrids.

The problem is that the switch over to hybrid - or at least PZEV exhaust systems - is taking too long to happen. Subaru has just started for their 2010 models.

 

I simply asked a question. Due to your location and choice of avatar I can make assumptions but I chose to ask your directly instead of assuming.

Could you please cite your sources? I've not seen any records that state a zero loss or zero gain over the last decade and how this will affect the overall positive temperature trend. I can provide a GIS data graph that shows the opposite though and this is based on a longer time period as climate should be (least you enter the realm of weather). These longer time frames help us in determining the overall trend and with enough resolution, we can see how variable the temperatures can be from year to year yet they do not affect the overall trend.


Link HERE

"The red line is the annual global-mean GISTEMP temperature record (though any other data set would do just as well), while the blue lines are 8-year trend lines - one for each 8-year period of data in the graph. What it shows is exactly what anyone should expect: the trends over such short periods are variable; sometimes small, sometimes large, sometimes negative - depending on which year you start with. The mean of all the 8 year trends is close to the long term trend (0.19ºC/decade), but the standard deviation is almost as large (0.17ºC/decade), implying that a trend would have to be either >0.5ºC/decade or much more negative (< -0.2ºC/decade) for it to obviously fall outside the distribution. Thus comparing short trends has very little power to distinguish between alternate expectations." quoted from Gavin Schmidt and Stefan Rahmstorf

It seems a lot of climate skeptics are jumping on information presented by the UK Met Office and claiming that since 2000 global average temperatures have stopped climbing and this information is proof that global warming is a hoax but even that is not the whole story. Here is a quote from the Met Office head of climate change Dr. Vicky Pope Link HERE.

Again cite your source so I can review their opinion directly and try and figure out how they came up with this opinion and what assumptions they made regading the carbon cycle and its ability to sequester the extra 7Gt of carbon we human emit (from fossil fuel use) without upsetting some of these sequestering processes which could lead to a net release instead of sequestration. I'm also curious how they came up with these predictions. If the global average atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were approx. 280ppmv pre-industrial era (1750) and we now sit at approx. 388ppmv then the likely gain of anthropogenic CO2 would be approx .42ppmv/yr increase. Now that is assuming that all of the gain above 280ppmv is anthropogenic which has not been verified. By the same token how can one postulate that it would only increase by 1ppmv/5yrs without such crucial information? Ahh but we can determine anthropogentic carbon from natural by looking as carbon isotopes, in particular the reduction of carbon 14, carbon 13, and carbon 12 ratios. So if CO2 levels are rising, fossil fuel use is increasing, carbon sequestration sources are declining (forests, coral reefs, soils, etc.) and carbon 14 ratios are dropping then how can we pretend we are not having an impact? I'd be interested to see the paper or source where you got that information from. It might help clear up my possibly incorrect math.

 

Quote:
Let me ask you some questions. Are you aware that global average temperature stopped rising in 2001?

Could you please cite your sources? I've not seen any records that state a zero loss or zero gain over the last decade and how this will affect the overall positive temperature trend. I can provide a GIS data graph that shows the opposite though and this is based on a longer time period as climate should be (least you enter the realm of weather). These longer time frames help us in determining the overall trend and with enough resolution, we can see how variable the temperatures can be from year to year yet they do not affect the overall trend.

From the University of Alabama at Huntsville: using the most reliable datasets (satellite):

Latest Global Temperatures Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Quote:
Are you aware as of 2009, there are only 38 to 39 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions another five years to raise that total by 1 molecule, to 40 out of every 100,000 molecules? We can start there if you like.

Again cite your source so I can review their opinion directly and try and figure out how they came up with this opinion...

Okay:

Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

If you would like to follow discussions and links that take issue with YOUR source - realclimate, the following site regularly takes Gavin Schmidt and his boss Hansen to task for the often shoddy work they do:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Steve McIntyre is the fellow who proved Mann's original 'hockey stick' graph was fatally flawed and continues to point out huge problems with the AGW powers that be and their disingenuous assertions. He regularly forces them to admit mistakes even though they often refuse to provide him with the data from which they claim to draw their conclusions. You can search to your heart's content for information that interests you. Unlike sites such as RealClimate, his site accepts questions and allows discussion with critics - even you, I'm sure. Why don't you address your questions there? I am a mere layman with common sense and an open mind.

Despite your discalimer, the assumptions are obvious. As to my location, how on earth could that have significance?

I changed my avatar to the present one to satisfy Fibb222 - He didn't like the previous one. Now, others find this one somehow discomforting. CO2 is NOT anything other than a beneficial gas, certainly not a pollutant. Plants love it and I love plants.

 

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out but know that anything Spencer says is to be taken with a grain of salt. His funding sources and organizational ties speak for him. I'll look at McIntyre's stuff too. Thanks again.

CO2 can affect plant growth and ecosystems in a negative way as well by promoting invasive species populations and distribution. Furthermore, the other emissions associated with burning fossil fuels (the main source for anthropogenic CO2) most definately cause harm to human health, the economy, and ecosystems. So to say you love CO2 is a rather sad joke. Since my job works specifically with land management and invasive species I don't see how anyone can find such a quotes as "CO2 is NOT anything other than a beneficial gas, certainly not a pollutant. Plants love it and I love plants." amusing. When was the last time you took a botany class or worked with your state's Native Plant Society or similar organization? You should check them out if you really do love plants. Those kinds of organizations are a wealth of knowledge and generally hold many workshops where one could learn a great deal without having to take upper division classes.

As for my assumptions. 90% of the time when someone comes into this forum to discredit global warming or just about any other science-based issue concerning the environment they hail from Texas or Florida (southern states), have antoagonistic quotes, signatures, avatars or usernames, usually don't even own a Prius, and they LOVE to post links to "data" presented by Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, John Christy or just about anyone else funded by christian groups, large resource extraction corporations, and conservative think tanks like The Heartland Institute, The National Center for Public Policy Research, Competetive Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation and of course the Wise Use Group.

 

So, if a scientist has ties to conservative groups, that automatically invalidates his scientific accomplishments and views? This tactic to discredit scientific conclusions can cut both ways - and does. It is a slippery slope.

The mixing of science and politics is problematic and defiles the concept of pure science. It is what we live with, however, when scientific conclusions are driven by politics, the interests of ideologues, and self-serving grant-seekers. The results can threaten not just the science involved but whole economies and, indeed, liberty itself.

One of the more reasonable voices I've encountered exploring this area is that of Roger Pielke:

Prometheus Blog Archive Climate Science Infallibility Syndrome

And he basically accepts AGW, so his views shouldn't be discredited on the basis of being a skeptic, but of course they are by the ideologues whose only interst in the science is to use it to control others and will not accept even the most clear-headed criticism.

My basic objection to AGW is the way it is presented. The climate hysterics who use this single environmental issue to raise irrational fears for political purposes are dangerous. They have convinced the media who uncritically echo the disaster scenarios of non-scientists such as Al Gore.

Everywhere one turns the inevitability of awaiting doom and disaster is shouted unless we DO SOMETHING NOW! And the solutions are politically motivated. Huge mental leaps are required to go from a degree of warming in a century to the extinction of the earth as we know it, and yet they are taken by folks such as our friend Fibb222 who constantly posts these links to each new cataclysm that awaits us. He thinks I'm the crazy one.

 

The problem is not that we a ruining "the planet" with AGW. The problem is that our economy, security and welfare will be harmed, perhaps severely. It's not a question of saving the world it's a matter of saving the civilization we have now and allowing for the better civilization we could have.

Sea level rise and fresh water scarcity alone are potentially disastrous. From sea level rise we could have hundreds of millions of refugees costing us billions, and water scarcity will greatly increase the likelihood of wars between nations. Nevermind the problems that will come from not being able to grow enough rice and corn if things get too hot in certain countries. (Fertilization of crops stops completely at 110 F or something like that)

The Earth is warming and warming fast, there is a lot of latency in the climate system, and there are tremendous positive feedback mechanisms starting to take effect, and we haven't even started reducing emissions.

We now have politicians who are willing to address the problem. Unfortunately we are almost too late to do anything gradual. The rate of change in decarbonizing the economy is going to have to be fantastic and very disruptive to many.

I predict electric cars powered only by renewable energy will be selling more than gas cars by 2020. A ban will be placed on oil-derived gasoline by 2030. No coal plants will be approved world-wide by 2015. etc.

And certainly geo-engineering will be required, even after we stop using fossil fuels completely.

I'm not crazy, I just have forsight and I'm practical.

 

I can see where you are going with this but I do not feel it is directly applicable because there is a large difference between a mega-corporation or for-profit group and a conservation group. I would never place Exxon Mobile in the same category as say the Sierra Nevada Conservancy or Defenders of Wildlife. Their goals are completely different. One is self serving and the other serves others.

I live by grants for the most part but as with the vast majority of people I work with, we do not simply suck at the teat of grant-givers and keep doing work that we feel is meaningless or worse yet, misguided just so we can live. No, most of us believe in fairness of community and that includes not wasting tax payer money on stupid ventures. I do not apply for grants just because they are available. I recognize a problem with my lands and I look for available grants that are specific to that problem and I apply for them but only if I feel there is a reasonable chance of success with the project. This is where I feel many scientists are cast in an unfavorable light be non-scientists. Because those doing the finger pointing are regarding scientific grant money usage are likely to be self-serving and greedy doesn't mean everyone else is. By definition people in my field of work go through a lot of school (spending a lot of money) and rarely do they make a lot of money in their chosen field, unlike say a doctor or a lawyer or CEO. We do what we do because we love people and the land.

I agree with you. I don't like to hear friends claim that the newest mega-flood or hurricane was cause by global warming either. I don't know any climate scientists that would make such a claim either. Hell when Dr. Jeff Price came to give a talk at one of our local colleges that was one of the first things he mentioned, be careful what you attribute to global warming. That is why I posted the link and quote from the Head of Climate Change at the UK Met Office Dr. Vicky Pope. She is basically saying the same thing. People on both sides of the fence should stop trying to take any little piece of new data or event and try to apply it to their cause. However, because we can make calculations to determine how much CO2 humans are putting into the atmosphere by virtue of barrels of oil consumed each year and by measuring how much carbon 14 remains in the atmosphere (fossil fuel is depleted of carbon 14 whereas "natural" sources of carbon are not), the amount of CO2 stored in dry matter and soils and how much is released during deforestation, and many other factors it would be ignorant to assume we cannot have an impact on the atmosphere and climate. Now if you agree to the impact but differ in the opinion that is is a NEGATIVE impact then we can work with that and have a good discussion.

There is a quicktime movie of his talk if you are interested. HERE

"Dr. Price is a biologist and Professor of Geological and Environmental Sciences at CSU Chico. Along with co-authoring the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (ecosystems), the IPCC Third Assessment Report (ecosystems), and the IPCC Technical Paper on Climate Change and Biodiversity, he also contributed text to the U.K. Government's Stern Review of the Economic Impacts of Climate Change and U.S. National Assessment on Climate Change Impacts on the United States. He was co-author of the Nature article "Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants", of the publication The Birdwatcher's Guide to Global Warming as well as a number of scientific papers on the potential impacts of global warming on birds."

 

Just a note on a good discussion. The above quote is not science, but a manipulation to convince those that don't understand chemistry and biology that there is nothing of significance occurring. As a counter example; the difference between 273.14 Kelvin and 273.16 is only 73 ppm. This is a much, much smaller change than the 1 molecule difference presented above, but a really big 'environmental' effect occurs. Likewise, other really small environmental changes often cause really big biological changes. This has nothing to do with supporting or opposing AGW, but does show that oversimplification is not useful for discussions of substance.

 

A couple of points.

Hardly anything that meets controversy is black or white or without trade-offs. A large corporation exists to meet demands of consumers and to profit. A conservancy group exists to further a cause that may or may not benefit the majority of the people involved. They also seek money to further their efforts and are not above being radical, under-handed or disingenuous in this endeavor. A case in point involvong one of the groups you mention. (Keep in mind that I am not suggesting that all corporations are always without fault or that all conservation groups are always misguided.):

Henny Youngman Might Say, “Take My Wolves…..Please!†: California Hunting Today

There are MANY doubts regarding the IPCC, (which most people accept as the last word in climate science,) and the scientific work they claim suggests beyond any shadow that we must act now, globally, to curtail CO2 drastically or the results for earth and mankind will be dire:

The IPCC under the Microscope

UN’s IPCC preying on people’s ignorance

Yes, I know, these are conservatives, but the points made nonetheless raise very serious doubts as to the validity of the IPCC's claims and political aims.

 

A further note - While we do know exactly what happens to H2O at around K 273.16, we have absolutely no idea exactly what another molecule of CO2 in 100,000 in the atmosphere will produce in terms of climate change.

We DO know that, according to computer models constructed to prove just such an occurance, that the 'greenhouse effect' should produce more heat. However, the computer models are presently incapable of including all the factors that drive climate on earth and consequently an ever-growing number of scientists is becoming skeptical of the IPCC's claims. Couple that with the fact that the IPCC is not a scientific body but a political one and a reasonable person should ask more questions rather than accept blindly pronouncements that potentailly affect mankind in more dire ways than climate.

 

Mmm, maybe not crazy, just not well informed. The earth is not "warming fast". Temps have been flat to cooling now for nearly a decade; sea surface temperatures declining; antarctic ice extent at record levels; arctic ice extent recovered to its mean value; etc. And yet all we hear is that global warming is "worse than ever"; climate change is "accelerating"; etc. Please explain.

 

No more sugar coating it Mr. You are a big fat liar. (no disrespec'... )

As the rest of the world wakes up to the threat it appears the deniers have no choice but take the tact that the outright boldest lies are those most likely to sway the ignorant.

 

Huh? You are calling me a liar? Please tell me what of that which I just mentioned is a "lie". It appears that the person with the screen-name of "Fibb" is indeed the liar. No irony there.

Arctic sea ice extent has recovered almost completely to the mean.



In fact, a recent ice survey there found ice thicknesses double what they expected.

Antarctic sea ice is near an all time high.



Sea surface temperatures are declining since early this decade,



And global temperature trends are flat (declining if you include 2009), since 2002:



So tell me Fibb, who is the fibber?

 

Yes I am... and your charts can suck on it too, bi-otch, (....no disrespec'...).

 

Wow man. You are really sick in the head Fibb. As much as we've disagreed in the past, I don't think you've ever behaved like this.

I'm not sure how you can stare point blank at the data in these charts - which support exactly the arguments I have made - and call me a "liar" and a "bi-otch". Particularly when you have presented absolutely ZERO evidence otherwise.

Besides you being ill-informed, I now have to conclude you are just a rude person as well.

Again, please tell me exactly what it is in the above post is a lie, Fibb. Until you do, you will just go on sounding like a shrill, ill-informed, global warming zealot.