I’m melting

It seems that as more of the detail of Climate Change is analysed and published, the more convincing the argument that man is contributing to the warming of the planet.

We have been told that Antartica is cooling and how this must disprove any suggestions that the planet is warming, but it seems that this is not the case.

Scientists used to think Antarctica was bucking the trend on global warming by getting cooler.

Now it seems they got it wrong.

US researchers have pored over data from satellites and weather stations in the biggest ever study of the frozen continent’s climate – and found it’s warming after all.

And so, even though certain parts of the planet maybe cooling, the overall trend is that the planet is warming. Of course the septic sceptics will say that because today is not as hot as yesterday they can disprove global warming.

Advertisements

94 Responses

  1. Joni,

    This guy was on AM this morning. According to him, data from Antarctic-based weather-stations have shown that “While the rest of the world has been warming up, the interior of Antarctica has been getting colder”.

    How do they now come to a conclusion that contradicts decades of land-based data? Simple: they mix it with 25 years of satellite data. This is not a method I’ve heard of before, but I can’t help thinking they’ve cherry-picked data to reach a desired result. (I haven’t read the study: Nature is subscription-only.)

    By the way, my comments here are purely academic. My position is: climate has always changed, but human influence has not been proven.

  2. “My position is: climate has always changed, but human influence has not been proven.”

    I would add to that statement “but we would be foolish to ignore the opinions and findings of large numbers of scientists who suggest it IS the cause”.

    Even if AGW is a load of crock IMO it would be foolsih to ignore the destruction being caused by environmental degredation caused by humans OR the fact that the resources currently being relied on to proide energy are finite.

  3. IMO it would be foolsih to ignore the destruction being caused by environmental degredation caused by humans OR the fact that the resources currently being relied on to proide energy are finite.

    Both fair generalisations, and hard to argue with, but not particularly pertinent to the specific AGW debate.

  4. Just for those who think these kinds of polls have any meaning at all:

    Al Gore’s side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming.

    Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

  5. Both fair generalisations, and hard to argue with, but not particularly pertinent to the specific AGW debate.

    Actually Tony, it is extremely relevant to the dabate.

    The debate is about a ‘theory’, which indicates that it is not a proven case. But the evidence FOR the case, is so strongly weighted, that it must be taken seriously.

    And the repercussions for the human race if action is not taken is significant.

    Unfortunately, being a theory, individual examples can speak volumes to an ignorant public that want to believe that nothing can go wrong, that want to believe that they do not need to change..

  6. Sorry, but I call bull…………sh1t!

  7. But the evidence FOR the case, is so strongly weighted, that it must be taken seriously.

    On the contrary: for a theory which has gained so much popular support, actual evidence is remarkably difficult to find. (There are plenty of things put up as ‘evidence’ of AGW, but none of them can be shown either to be as a direct result of human influence, or that they might not have occurred anyway.)

  8. What’s the use in debate…we are going to cop this ETS tax whether we believe or not in this AGW!

    Us poor plebs are not capable of changing our ways unless the government taxes the jebus out of us and give it back in another form to facilitate the dependence on them…talk about pork!!!

    You know…we drink too much…TAX IT…we eat too much junk food…TAX IT…we are not responsible parents…FILTER US…is anyone here getting sick of this nanny state mentality???

    I think septic is the right description of the blowhards at both extremes of this debate…the Pus on them all!!!

    I saw that fool Flannery on SKY this morning and the way his eyes were darting around when asked certain questions I would not believe anything he says the toxic sulphur crested clown…he might as well come out and say how he sees people that question the so called science…heretics!

    The whole thing has degenerated into a farce in my opinion which will do FA in improving the environment.

    Just a revenue scam!

  9. Hey Scaper,

    Aren’t we supposed to have the Sandpit (or equivalent) today?

  10. actual evidence is remarkably difficult to find.

    HMMM so all those scientists (you know, the VAST majority) have put their reputations on the line for…..a hunch??

  11. Aren’t we supposed to have the Sandpit (or equivalent) today?

    We were going to, but it got too hot 🙂

  12. Tony, I thought that was scrubbed…I will be putting up threads in a few weeks as I’m a bit flat out at the moment.

  13. HMMM so all those scientists (you know, the VAST majority) have put their reputations on the line for…..a hunch??

    No, as you rightly pointed out, it’s a theory, or, more precisely, a hypothesis.

  14. Ok Scaper, thanks.

  15. The grass on my lawn is very dry at the moment…

  16. Well why don’t you water it TB; you’re allowed to do that up there, aren’t you (unlike here in Melbourne, where our successive state governments, through lack of foresight, have allowed us to practically run out of water)?

  17. No, ToSY, no watering, 170 litres per day for “human” consumption…

    …but you just proved that the AGW is caused by human beans… 😀

  18. Did I? Damn.

  19. LOL!

    One for the Priests of the Climate Change Church and the Gospel of Global warming according to St Al – although I’m not sure he knows where Melborn (sic) is… 😈

  20. No, as you rightly pointed out, it’s a theory, or, more precisely, a hypothesis.

    Similar (in principal), I am guessing, to the THEORY of relativity, or the THEORY of evolution.

    Something we (well, most) take for granted.

  21. Or the theory of god!

  22. Ah TB goes back to a base attack because he bereft of anything lucid or factual and attempts to paint climate change as religious fundamentalism. Of course also ignoring the absolute fanaticism on the sceptics side and also not being original in his Saint Al attack. The Religious Fanaticism of Saint Al Gore

  23. When they run out of all these denials it’s always back to religious fanaticism. The religious fanaticism attack ignores the plethora of scientists slogging away day in day out producing one for peer review paper after another, not getting into the headlines and just doing their job. Instead the attack concentrates on the few who make the media with their exaggerated claims whilst ignoring the equally outrageous claims from media hogs like Bolt, Blair and the other sceptics. who could just as easily be labelled fanatics.

  24. When they run out of all these denials

    That’s an interesting link, Adrian. Do you know of a similar list of proofs? Or better still, just one thing which proves that humans cause global warming?

  25. It’s a correlation Tony, and the fact that when all other factors are discounted, as they have been one by one, the additional man made CO2 (and other human produced greenhouse gases) is the cause.

  26. Tony do you have any proof that it the cause is natural or from a cause other than man made?

  27. No Adrian, but I’m not the one making these claims. The onus of proof is on those advancing the AGW hypothesis.

  28. And they are.

  29. scaper…, on January 22nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm Said:

    Or the theory of god!

    Close sacaper, but no bananna yet

    That is a belief, not a theory, as there is no supporting evidence.

  30. Gday, Adrian!

    Now, you know I am a firm believer in alternative energy….(….aaa-ll praise….)

    However, scientists constantly change position in any number of fields…and I will not insult your intelligence (or waste my time) running around finding links to “prove” it – unless you insist, of course…

    Suffice it to say that I am ambivelent when it comes to AGW (even the name makes me laugh – Anthropormophic Global Warming!) – not only is it clumsy – it makes an assumption even in the title! Just as I am an agnostic with regard to religion…and find the statements of many financial advisors quite hilarious…(apologies to resident Blogocrats…). I like being a Devil’s Advocate – its harder but more fun…! 😈

    As for ETS (or whatever the spin doctors are calling it this week) – how to make money out of doing nothing! Tha’s what got the world into its present financila mess – and they want to try a different direction this time!

    If there really is a Global Warming Issue – or even a Climate Change issue (that we’ve had for the last umpteen million years of earthly history…) ETS is not the answer – alternative energy solutions abound – they just need assistance ……………………

    Anyway – attack? I was having a genial moment with a fellow blogger (ToSY) – and then you hit me with fanatiscism, denial, sceptics…

    …mate, I’ve got me water tank (second one on order), me solar hot water system and the solar power is on the way…

    …served me two years as a production manager in the solar industry, so I know what BS governments prattle on with…

    …nothing has changed – except the politics of big business and switched on scientists seeking more research funding…oops! does that sound cynical, sarcastic or just plain sceptical…? 😯

    PS I do hope you aren’t aligning me with Bolt and Blair and God forbid (or who cares) that Ackerman, chappie!

  31. Adrian,

    If anyone had proof that man was responsible, and not other factors, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Debate would have been shut down, because every time a sceptic dared pop their head up, they would have been shot down in flames by these astounding new facts.

    In fact, you would be using the argument right now. So far? Nothing.

  32. Just to reinforce my original argument that scientists continually change their position I draw your attention to the quote in the thread post –

    …Scientists used to think Antarctica was bucking the trend on global warming by getting cooler…

    Now it seems they got it wrong.

    Just keep slogging away day in day out producing one (sic) for peer review paper after another, girls and guys – eventually you’ll get it right… 😆

  33. TB, hehe.

    Here’s a RealClimate post from February 2008:

    Antarctica is Cold? Yeah, We Knew That

    Despite the recent announcement that the discharge from some Antarctic glaciers is accelerating, we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century.

  34. TB:

    “Just to reinforce my original argument that scientists continually change their position ”

    TB just a little clue. Science is about changing position in the light of new evidence. On the other hand ‘faith’ is about denial regardless of the evidence.

    Tis clear who is the religious fanatic.

    Had a paper or two ‘peer reviewed’ have you TB? Lol.

  35. Had a paper or two ‘peer reviewed’ have you TB? Lol.

    Sarcasm, to reinforce you’re “intellectual” argument, N5

    Slipping to my standards – disappointed – make sure you check all my spelling and grammar too! LOL!

    My understanding is that not all the AGW scientists agree with some of the peer review…

    Its a bit like the old question – if we were all 100% then would we just be average…

    BTW – yes, I have…have you? Lol!

  36. New ‘eggcorns’ proliferate tonight. Indeed they are not on the existing worldwide database.

    http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/browse-eggcorns/

    Three new commendable efforts.

    “the jebus out of us” Has to be a 10 out of 10. Or maybe more? Then: “septic is the right description”. Clearly a lame attempt at toilet humour, Absolutely brilliant! But topped by: “the Pus on them all”.

    While I think they are ‘eggcorns’ maybe they are ‘malapropisms’? Who knows?

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

    Just an observation from a ‘gutless mangy dog’, as described by the same poster. Lol.

  37. TB Queensland,

    Impossible to have a serious discussion with you because you ‘bait and switch’ when you are under pressure or cornered. But not sure that you are conscious of that.

    As for “slipping to my standards” Never! But at least you are now admitting ‘low standards’ Lol.

    As for:

    “My understanding is that not all the AGW scientists agree with some of the peer review”

    TB you should know all about ‘peer review’ because you say: “yes, I have” . So there’s no need to respond. You know all about ‘peer review’. Lol. Unless of course you are telling porkies? Lol.

    Sometimes being aggressive in defense just reveals more ‘holes’. “Common sense’ really’.

  38. TB, it appears like the pseudo erudite does not grasp the meaning of ‘septic’…toilet humour…LOL!

    Oh well…fools will be tools!

    I would say “don’t feed the troll” but the bones we are feeding him is rather good entertainment…or should I say “a social experiment”?

    After all…he believes he is the jebus’ croupe of the blogosphere…LOL!!!

  39. Nature 5, on January 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    Now you’re “wandering”, N5, much prefer your more lucid posts – FYI OH&S has a number of scientific and academic streams constantly developing data and presenting papers – I’ll let you into a secret (another) – I don’t lie (don’t have to remember ’em, or “build” on ’em)

    …unlike some, I have no need to engage in untruths and deceit…kittylitter didn’t realise that I had referred to you as “it” deliberately – I do hope you know why…I still have your final post from Blogocracy…

    …as for slipping standards – get a sense of humour, research sarcasm and your world will be brighter…

    …and finally, my original posts were just a bit of fun involving ToSY, you chose to “take me on” and try to convert me (again) – loosen up – stop patronising people…life’s too short, and I for one, am enjoying it… 😆

    …and as I’ve said recently, “…common sense, ain’t so common…”

  40. TB,
    Regarding common sence.
    When i finally read what you ment about it i was left wondering how simple it was that it is a leant behavior.

    But seeing i have no other word for it i will just keep using it in referance to the country im taking about but with a new understanding of the word.

    cheers. TB

  41. TB

    …nothing has changed – except the politics of big business and switched on scientists seeking more research funding…oops! does that sound cynical, sarcastic or just plain sceptical…? 😯

    I’ll pick you up on this because it’s as bad as your attack falling back to the base of comparing proponents to religious fanatics.

    That is on the whole a lie TB and I thought you were better than a perpetuate of lies. This has been bought up, discredited and sourced in debates within Blogocracy, which I believe you were a part of. Most of the scientists inputting into the AGW data are not on special research funding or receive any additional funding grants because they are doing studies into AGW. They are doing the same job they have always done for the same government or private agencies they have nearly always worked for. If they weren’t looking at AGW they would be looking at whatever the cause for the warming is, or if the globe were cooling, what the cause for that is. They would continue to model and improve the modelling of the planets climate even if everything were going along swimmingly with perfectly stable weather all over the place.

    ——————————
    Old trick at 09:56 am. Another fall back diversion tactic of yours I note.

  42. aquanut, on January 23rd, 2009 at 10:10 am

    Ta, aqua, as a training consultant in OH&S and management – common sense is often thrown up as a “defence”… by learners

    ie “Why should we have to supervise them”, or, “they should know that”, or, “anyone knows that” – all ending in “its just common sense”…

    If a manager or supervisor believes in “common sense” s/he will continue to have problems with the troops.

    In a training program I always waited for it and as is my style 😀 pounced…had to get rid of the concept to move on…

    …old facilitators don’t die – they just smell that way 😆

  43. Adrian, thank you for taking the time to reply to my post but I don’t believe all scientists are squeaky clean, some have agendas, like the rest of society…

    As for a “fall back diversion tactic” I’m quite flattered that you believe I have tactics – I just type as I see…

    …as I have said before, I don’t believe I have ever initiated any attack on other posters, I simply defend against others attacking me – surely my posts/opinions are as valid as anyone elses?

  44. State of Antarctica: red or blue? (realclimate.org)

    …So what do our results show? Essentially, that the big picture of Antarctic climate change in the latter part of the 20th century has been largely overlooked. It is well known that it has been warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, probably for the last 100 years (measurements begin at the sub-Antarctic Island of Orcadas in 1901 and show a nearly monotonic warming trend). And yes, East Antarctica cooled over the 1980s and 1990s (though not, in our results, at a statistically significant rate). But West Antarctica, which no one really has paid much attention to (as far as temperature changes are concerned), has been warming rapidly for at least the last 50 years…

  45. Obama Urgent on Warming, Public Cool

    By Andrew C. Revkin

    The latest in an annual series of polls from the Pew Research Center on people’s top priorities for their elected leaders shows that America and President Obama are completely out of sync on human-caused global warming. Mr. Obama stressed the issue throughout his campaign and several times in his inaugural speech, mentioning stabilizing climate in the same breath as preventing nuclear conflict at one point.

    According to the survey of 1,503 adults, global warming, on its own, ranks last out of 20 surveyed issues. Here’s the list from top to bottom, with the economy listed as a top priority by 85 percent of those polled and global warming 30 percent: the economy, jobs, terrorism, Social Security, education, energy, Medicare, health care, deficit reduction, health insurance, helping the poor, crime, moral decline, military, tax cuts, environment, immigration, lobbyists, trade policy, global warming.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/obamas-urgency-on-warming-meets-cool-public/

    http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority

  46. “Nature 5, on January 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 pm Said:

    TB Queensland,

    Impossible to have a serious discussion with you because you ‘bait and switch’ when you are under pressure or cornered. But not sure that you are conscious of that.

    As for “slipping to my standards” Never! But at least you are now admitting ‘low standards’ Lol.”

    At least TB doesn’t switch names in order to support his position (wink). Sounds so much like your alter-ego Squared (wink)

    Nature 5, on January 24th, 2009 at 12:41 am Said:
    M1+M2+M3=M3 Squared, on January 24th, 2009 at 12:46 am Said:

    Geez, and you both have the same tone – what are the chances? Dopey, Charlatan – both seem to fit perfectly

  47. More recruits from the sock-drawer of shame, John?

  48. “Tony

    More recruits from the sock-drawer of shame, John?”

    Nature5 went away licking his wounds and came back with a mate. Geez, he’s a bloody good laugh though, couldn’t help but give himself away.

  49. So Tony, we are talking Americans here?

    Do the same survey here or in Europe, Asia, Africa etc. and you would get entirely different responses.

    Obama as president must look at all the data presented to him, and the consequences as detailed by the Pentagon and CIA, and act on that, instead of ignoring it like Bush (and Howard) did or go along with some survey with people that are only looking short term.

  50. You might be interested to hear this, Adrian:

    While there might be a moratorium on new coal-fired plants in the U.S., the rest of the world will not be joining it. The International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2008 projects that fossil fuels will still account for 80 percent of the world’s primary energy production in 2030. Nearly 90 percent of the increase in world electricity demand will be driven by the economic growth of developing countries, especially that of China and India. In other words, coal will still be fueling civilization for the next couple of generations.

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/131146.html

  51. I see Turnbull is not in favour of this TAX that the government is trying to impose on us.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24955367-601,00.html

    No need to give my opinion of the man here but a plan to achieve sustainability and reduce pollution without creating the churn will certainly get my vote and quite a few others too I should imagine.

    I also see that QLD is negating the governments grand plan if you can call it that to buy water allocations for the MDS.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24955480-11949,00.html

    Three billion dollars wasted to achieve absolutely zero!!!

    For seventeen billion dollars more the system could be converted into an oasis to overcome the future food shortage and breath life into the river, side storage’s and the lower lakes.

    Oh well…

  52. Why would I be interested in that Tony?

    Oh I get it, you think we should all just turn over and give up because no matter what we do it will be useless in the face of the global scheme.

    Everybody just put your arms in the air waving white flags and don’t even bother anymore. Rip out all the devices in your vehicles designed to make them run cleaner, take out all the extremely expensive EP stuff in the factories and don’t waste a cent more on making things run cleaner. It’s all lost anyway so we might as well all jump on the pollute to hell bandwagon and just get it over with quicker, so those reaping in all the wealth can go out in greater style whilst it’s the plebs who suffer the fallout.

  53. scaper…, on January 24th, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    I like what he is saying a lot, and it is what Rudd should have been doing from the start, along with other things.

    But until Turnbull clarifies this part;

    Mr Turnbull’s plans, for which he will not provide costings,

    then it is all as much pie in the sky stuff as a lot of Rudd’s is.

  54. Tony of South Yarra wrote:

    On the contrary: for a theory which has gained so much popular support, actual evidence is remarkably difficult to find.

    Is this not the same Tony (or do I misremember?) who asserted a few weeks ago via some symbolic logic that Popper’s philosophy of science proved that no single piece of evidence could ever prove AGW? Seems disingenuous if you hold that position to go on to say that the lack of such a single piece of killer evidence disproves the theory…have your cake and eat it too?

    Or does Tony now understand that much science (including climate science) is not a Popperian enterprise – but hasn’t yet understood what implications that has for “evidence”?

  55. Hi Lotharsson,

    Hope you’re well.

    First we need to agree on what I was referring to when I made a similar, but fundamentally different, statement. It was about ‘climate change’ and I said words to the effect that any climate or weather event could be put forward as evidence, therefore the (climate change) theory is unscientific. (We could go back to that thread for the exact quote, if you prefer.)

  56. Adrian, yep the detail on both sides is lacking somewhat but at least there can be a case made for plan B and a possibility of A convergence of ideas to create a plan C.

    It’s a win, win…don’t you think?

  57. Lotharsson,

    I’ve found the actual comment:

    Tony of South Yarra, on December 1st, 2008 at 7:01 pm Said:

    Lotharsson,

    Sorry to hear about your illness. I sincerely hope you keep feeling better.

    This implies that even you think the hypothesis is indeed falsifiable…

    Yes, the global warming hypothesis, where increased CO2 leads to increased temperatures, is falsifiable.

    The climate change ‘theory’, when any and all climate events can be claimed as evidence, is not.

    https://blogocrats.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/the-climes-they-are-a-changin/#comment-8340

  58. Yes, the global warming hypothesis, where increased CO2 leads to increased temperatures, is falsifiable.

    The climate change ‘theory’, when any and all climate events can be claimed as evidence, is not.

    Ah, thanks for finding that thread. I remember having a great deal of difficulty understanding what you were getting at, but I think I eventually figured it out. From my admittedly faulty memory, I believe you were using the term “climate change ‘theory'” in a completely different way from most people, and that was confusing me (and perhaps others). One could even argue that you conflated “climate change ‘theory'” with AGW at times, although at other times (such as that quote you found) you drew a distinction between the two .

    You seemed in the end to use “climate change ‘theory'” to mean the argument, belief or hypothesis that a particular weather event was caused or partially caused by climate change – and correctly point out that we don’t have enough data to be able to prove such causality for any individual event.

    That truth, however, has nothing to say about evidence confirming or disproving AGW. In contrast to your definition of “climate change ‘theory'”, AGW posits that human activities have contributed to climate change (and by extension, that the pattern and parameters of weather events, when taken on a statistical rather than individual basis, will show distinct changes). Accordingly, no individual weather event on its own can prove or disprove AGW, which I think we agree upon.

    So, back to this thread. When you say “for a theory which has gained so much popular support…”, which theory do you have in mind? The one you refer to above as “the climate change ‘theory'”, or AGW as I’ve stated it, or something else?

    And what kind of evidence do you think is required?

  59. which theory do you have in mind? The one you refer to above as “the climate change ‘theory’”, or AGW as I’ve stated it, or something else?

    As you can see earlier in this thread, I specifically mention AGW, and never mention climate-change. And yes, I did use the term theory – when repeating Tom R’s own description to him – but clarified further by adding “No, as you rightly pointed out, it’s a theory, or, more precisely, a hypothesis” – in this comment:

    https://blogocrats.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/im-melting/#comment-16916

    So what I am referring to is the AGW hypothesis. Hope that clears up that point.

    And what kind of evidence do you think is required?

    Supporting evidence would be repeated success of risky predictions – such predictions being other than what would be expected under ‘normal’ circumstances.

    Evidence which would falsify the hypothesis, on the other hand, would be repeated failure of temperatures to rise.

  60. Supporting evidence would be repeated success of risky predictions – such predictions being other than what would be expected under ‘normal’ circumstances.

    Evidence which would falsify the hypothesis, on the other hand, would be repeated failure of temperatures to rise.

    I think you’re stuck in a Popperian world again – especially with that second paragraph (combined with your assertion that you can’t find any evidence that supports AGW). Your evidentiary requirement is predicated on only one variable changing at a time, which excludes almost all real world science (and especially medicine, which you probably rely upon – ever taken a prescription drug?)

    For example, if there are three known influences (A, B, C) acting on a measured variable (M) (and let’s assume there are no lag effects in the system for simplicity). Suppose you observe (say) a rise in A but fail to see a rise in M. Can you thereby falsify the hypothesis that increasing A leads to an increase in M? Only if you’ve held B and C constant and you know there are no other influences on M. And in many real world sciences this is not possible – so you find other ways to figure out the influence of A on M (and the error bound estimates for your work), even in the presence of uncontrolled changes in B, C and perhaps other influences.

    We simply haven’t got the ability to revert the state of the world and try changing only one variable that affects climate at a time. With your criteria I reckon you are actually ruling the AGW hypothesis “unscientific” and unfalsifiable, despite your claims to the contrary.

    If you insist that you’ll only accept Popperian experiments, thereby ruling out huge swathes of actual science, then there’s little point listening to your objections because you’re begging the question.

    At least, that’s what I think is going on if I understood your position (gleaned from this thread and the one you quoted before).

  61. Ok, my turn:

    Do you concede that there is at least the possibility that man-made CO2 has had no influence on temperatures, and any observed increases might have occurred regardless?

    (For the record, I willingly concede the possibility that man-made CO2 has had an influence, but remain sceptical.)

  62. scaper…, on January 24th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    Very good point, but of course politics will interfere and Plan C will turn into a point scoring exercise, especially by Turnbull who loves to take the kudos for anything the government does that works. So it will turn into yet another partisan farce of finger pointing and blame shifting and thus Plan C will become lose lose as it wastes more time and resources to achieve nothing.

    Better to just leave the government to do it (doesn’t matter which flavour) no matter if their processes are flawed, at least one step forward for ten steps back is being achieved, rather than 100 steps back as has been the case over the last decade plus.

    Damn, am I the cynic or realist in this?

  63. Adrian, it is best to wait forty eight hours as far as Turnbull’s position is concerned.

    If it remains so at least all parties are in the same room…let the policy fly as the debate on the best method to clean up our act.

    It is in my opinion that if an ETS can be avoided then more people would be on side, I ought to know, I took a census at the pub…remember…LOL!

  64. Do you concede that there is at least the possibility that man-made CO2 has had no influence on temperatures, and any observed increases might have occurred regardless?

    Depends whether you mean a priori or a posteriori.

    Before the research was done, that was definitely a possibility, otherwise it wouldn’t be a question that belongs in the realm of science. (Falsifiability and all that…)

    But based on what we now know from research to date, that now appears quite unlikely. It’s quite hard to construct a model of the world that is consistent with all the data we have and also consistent with “man-made CO2 (and all the other man-made greenhouse gas emissions and other effects on climate) have had no effect on the climate”.

    It’s a little like Lotto (but don’t take this analogy too far – Lotto is quantized much more heavily than the real world). Before the draw, it’s entirely possible that my 6 numbers will be picked. After the draw (or even part way through), one has more evidence to answer the question with, and in most cases the answer is a distinct “no” 😉

    (For the record, I don’t play Lotto.)

  65. that now appears quite unlikely

    Does that mean you concede – or deny – the possibility?

    (More importantly, are you well?)

  66. Does that mean you concede – or deny – the possibility?

    If I was denying the possibility I would have used the word “impossible”. It’s certainly possible (likelihood > 0) … but then it comes down to how likely given what we know. (And my use of language here is different from the common use because it is more precise, and those differences are probably where a lot of misunderstanding about science – particularly as reported in the media – comes from.)

    By way of comparison, it’s also possible the Theory of Relativity could be disproved in the future, but I and pretty much every physicist out there doesn’t like your chances. You are entitled to be sceptical that human influences have had an effect on global climate, but as far as I recall you haven’t put up any plausible (IMHO) reason for that skepticism yet. It seems to be primarily rooted in ruling the methodologies used as invalid (e.g. because they don’t fit into the limited but comforting confines of the Popper model). And I suspect if the same skepticism was applied to other areas of science you would avoid (for example) any of the products of modern medicine as being unproven….

    (More importantly, are you well?)

    Thanks for asking – forgot to respond to that query earlier. I’m still not anywhere near well, although I see some signs of gradual improvement (before they disappear again at the next dosage level – but at the end of each level I end up slightly better than the last). I do worse in the heat (especially at home without airconditioning), so today was a bit of a trial. Improvement will happen largely at its own pace, and it may be months or years before I feel half-way normal yet. I certainly hope you are much healthier than I 🙂

  67. Despite the hot air, the Antarctic is not warming up

    But then a good many experts began to examine just what new evidence had been used to justify this dramatic finding. It turned out that it was produced by a computer model based on combining the satellite evidence since 1979 with temperature readings from surface weather stations.

    The problem with Antarctica, though, is that has so few weather stations. So what the computer had been programmed to do, by a formula not yet revealed, was to estimate the data those missing weather stations would have come up with if they had existed. In other words, while confirming that the satellite data have indeed shown the Antarctic as cooling since 1979, the study relied ultimately on pure guesswork, to show that in the past 50 years the continent has warmed – by just one degree Fahrenheit.

  68. ToSY

    Good find. Now who do we believe?

  69. Dunno Joni. Until they release the details of their method, no-one really knows.

  70. What a heap of Tony, really.

    Look at the (2 for 1) article. Booker is as bad as Bolt in some ways.

    He doesn’t post any supporting evidence just generalisations and the usual attacks. Take this for example;

    Antarctica has long been a major embarrassment to the warmists.

    If Booker was even a fraction knowledgeable on the subject he would know that is not true at all (as his term ‘warmists”attests). No cooling anywhere on the planet has been an embarrassment to the climate scientists. Have those areas that have warmed like the Arctic and Greenland been an embarrassment to the deniers, it certainly hasn’t stopped them denying the warming?

    The fact is areas of cooling fits within the modelling and confirm the overall continuing global warming trend.

    Then as if to prove how little he really has in his attack halfway through his spray against the warming proponents (and the media that dare to publish any supportive findings) his completely changes subjects and launches into an equally vitriolic attack against the bloated wages of the British public service. The moment he did that he lost cred in my opinion.

    Two sprays for the price of one article. Booker really does appear to be the British version of Bolt.

    Sorry for shooting the messenger but in this case he deserves to be shot.

  71. What a heap of Tony, really.

    Just in case I’m misreading you again, is that what you meant to write?

  72. Make up your own mind if the Antarctica data is bogus;

    May 2008
    Cold Water Thrown on Antarctic Warming Predictions

    September 2008
    Antarctic sea ice increases despite warming

    January 2009
    Antarctica Is Warming: Climate Picture Clears Up

    Many more scientific sources but the spaminator here will hold up the post.

  73. Absolutely Tony it is a heap and that is nothing against you but against the jumbled Booker article.

    Where are his scientific sources and facts. All he does is what I did by shooting a messenger. He makes a couple of false statements and generalisations in an almost vitriolic spray then shifts tact onto the unrelated topic of UK public servant salaries and apparent ineptitude.

    In other words he indulges in the very thing the sceptics state the alarmists do. Methinks it has more to do with the fact there maybe emerging evidence that the last great bastion of hope for the deniers, an Antarctic that is bucking the trend by not warming, is in fact warming. This would leave them with nothing to attack with and substantiate parts of the global warming modelling they have been using as evidence of a flaw.

  74. Forgot to add this.

    Furthermore this new evidence is coming from the very source the deniers have been using to discredit past climate data, and that is satellite temperature data. That would irk them no end.

  75. Music Break

  76. scaper – i will post that on my whaling thread too.

  77. Thanks…because of my settings I can not view it.

  78. It works and it is very disturbing.

  79. Will the Real Antarctica Please Stand Up?

    http://www.dailytech.com/Will+the+Real+Antarctica+Please+Stand+Up/article14028.htm

  80. That article doesn’t prove or disprove anything, only attack one aspect of a model at on time in the past.

    There are no scientific links or counter arguments as to why the modelling is supposedly disproved, just and ignorant attack because to the author who really hasn’t got a clue, which is about as much as I have. In this case they have latched onto a seeming contradiction and are running with it for all its worth but don’t offer any science to counter the supposed contradiction they think they have latched onto. Yet they call themselves a scientific or technical blog and the blog subject heading is Science. Well where is their science?

    You need look no further than the replies to see the same denier arguments being spewed forth, like the one that it’s all part of a natural cycle that occurs all over the solar system.

    I have no problem with opponents arguing with science that is counter to the AGW science but to ignorantly pick out what seems to be a contradiction and then argue on that with no counter scientific data to prove the case there is a contradiction doesn’t cut the mustard.

    Plus as much as they hang onto Antarctica as their one last great hope that disproves global warming, and even if that continent were freezing over in hell, it doesn’t take away from the scientific consensus and evidence the globe is warming, not cooling, and the warming isn’t part of any natural cycle.

    Also I wonder how Daily Tech would explain the recent deep sea (4km) findings off southern Tasmania that have found deep sea corals that show an ancient history of regular and natural ocean acidification (CO2 saturation) but are now showing definitive signs of recent (last 100 years) dramatic ocean acidification that is not part of any natural cycle.

    Another study (shown on ABC Catalyst the other night) showing the direct adverse effect of ocean CO2 saturation on plankton, again compared to ancient plankton fossils something that is not part of any natural cycle.

    In fact I wonder how they would explain the signs of flora and fauna all over the planet reacting to increased levels of CO2 and warming trends, but none to any form of a cooling trend?

  81. Gee, its bloody hot in Brisbane…what does that tell you?

  82. Did you hear about Wong blaming the southern heat wave on global warming yesterday?

    Unbelievable!

  83. scaper, I nearly choked on me cuppa – I laughed so much – talk about an each way bet! 😀

    Just because its cool… it doesn’t matter because we are talking long range here etc… but now … the present heatwave is an indicator … da da da – whatever suits the profile…

    …I believe in GOG!

  84. Youngest of my crew could tell you more scaps. This is just me from a very simplistic, non-scientific point of view. If we put cr*p out there viz chemicals/pollution then we need to clean up the mess as poor old planet can’t be expected to do it all by herself.

  85. Yeah scaper, I wanted to scream into the TV, Penny go to the light; blogocrats.wordpress.com

    weather ‡ climate Penny. (closest thing I could find to a not equals)

  86. I don’t see the tax churn that this government is going to burden us with really addressing the situation at all…just another industry emerging to make the players richer…neosocialism comes to mind.

  87. Rudd promised investment in infrastructure. About now would be a good time to start.

  88. The PM promised broadband coverage too…go to Jack’s over at The Australian to see what a feeding frenzy the leaches are having with that.

    Infrastructure Australia has identified the projects that are needed and it will be released after it has been amended and cleared by the PM’s office just like all the CSIRO reports.

  89. So what’s your answer to getting us as the highest per capital greenhouse producers in the world to dramatically cut back?

    And you are right the Rudd policy is a cop out and won’t help but I consider it better than doing absolutely nothing, and it is a form of this policy that is similar to what Howard and the opposition (fragmented) until recently were also proposing.

    I believe this is a first baby do nothing step to get baby ready for the nastier steps to follow and this or similar was probably the only way the government could have gone that would be immediately palatable to most parties. Once embedded it will be easier to argue more stringent measures and some of the things you have proposed in the past.

    This is just the way I see it and it’s more of a hope than any deep seeded belief that this is the case. Deep down I believe the Rudd government has sold out and not made the decision that needed to be made, no matter the pain that would cause to some of the big players in this country and thus also the people of this country.

    The longer you live high on the hog the more painful and longer the hangover.

  90. Adrian, I know of other people that have put alternatives to the ETS forward to have them dismissed without investigation…so much for inclusiveness that the PM was crowing.

    People in the forefront in the alternative energy field have been ignored…it just does not make sense.

    Check this link out…no interest from Canberra to develop the best area at all!

    http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/geothermal/ageg/status_of_geothermal_licence_activity

  91. I’m not going to disagree with scaper, in fact I am with you here in most aspects and Rudd ignoring the alternate energy and technology sectors is one of those, like he is deliberately ignoring biochar, which even NZ is significantly researching.

    But none of those alternatives change the way we do business nor our profligate behaviour. In fact alternatives only work if there is a dramatic reduction in our energy output both through efficiencies and behavioural modification. To do this there has to be a cost somewhere otherwise it will be the same as always only there is more alternative energy in the mix being wasted.

    My biggest beef with Rudd is that no cost is being put on those the most responsible, and who are the ones who have profited over many decades and even a century or more because they can pollute and be energy inefficient.

  92. Anthony Watts presents an article examining the methodology used in the study in question. ‘Scathing’ is probably not be too strong a word to describe the criticism of the study contained therein:

    Steig’s Antarctic Heartburn

    Foreword by Anthony Watts: This article, written by the two Jeffs (Jeff C and Jeff Id) is one of the more technically complex essays ever presented on WUWT. It has been several days in the making. One of the goals I have with WUWT is to make sometimes difficult to understand science understandable to a wider audience. In this case the statistical analysis is rather difficult for the layman to comprehend, but I asked for (and got) an essay that was explained in terms I think many can grasp and understand. That being said, it is a long article, and you may have to read it more than once to fully grasp what has been presented here…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: