by Russel Norman
I’ve previously blogged that one of Obama’s tools in the battle to get a climate change bill through the Senate is the US Supreme Court ruling of April 2007 that the Clean Air Act can be used to regulate CO2. This means that if the Senate won’t pass climate change legislation then Obama can use the Clean Air Act, which will be more clumsy and more unpopular with the polluting industries.
But he has another string in his bow also which is the emergence of state based cap and trade proposals for greenhosue gases.
I’m in Denver today and we’ve been looking at the Western Climate Initiative (amongst other things). This was an initiative from a number of western US states and a couple of Canadian provinces to look at what they could do about reducing greenhouse emissions when the US federal govt was controlled by Bush. It continues now and includes the possibility of setting up their own greenhouse cap and trade system.
Now it would be complex to establish such a system but it does raise the stakes if the Senate rejects taking action at a federal level. If the US were to have two or three multi-state cap and trade systems it would be very complex for the industries involved and then they would also have potential regulation by the EPA. Surely better for them to have one federal system…
Of course some of these corporations and politicians have been in denial about the science for years so they also have the capacity to be in denial about the regulatory realities so it’s no surprise that they continue to run ads on TV against the the American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman- Markey) passed by the House.
The Republicans have also announced that they intend to run ads targetting leading Democrats who supported the Act leading up to COngressional elections in 2010. The absurdity is that they will blame the unemployment that came from Bush’s poor regulation of the banks on the climate bill that will not yet have any effects.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Russel Norman on Fri, July 3rd, 2009
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
“Of course some of these corporations and politicians have been in denial about the science for years”
Perhaps you’d be man enough to argue the merits of the science here, rather than just posting and running?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
First, he would make the same arguments that abound on this blog and the rest of the world. As you’re heard it all before, what difference coming from Russel?
Second, you’ve decided you are beyond convincing, so it would be a waste of Russel’s time to pay you any attention at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
You’ll have no problem then pointing me and other readers at some of those arguments on this blog which you find so conclusive?
Please, go ahead. What are the two or three real knock-down convincing pieces of evidence that have been presented here? (or even if they haven’t been presented here, feel free to include them.)
After all, even if you don’t convince an evil “denier” like me, surely you’ll convince some of the growing number of waverers?
Or are you going to “do a Russel” and just imply that the evidence is there but, you know, never quite get round to showing it to us?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Remember to wash your hands afterwards Valis and don’t touch your mouth with your fingers!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Before you try convincing wat that human induced climate change is real you practice by trying to convince a flat-erather that gravity is real. Oh that’s right, gravity is an invention of the round-earth religion to make them feel better about sending all those pressganged sailors to their doom falling off the edge of the world (somewhere in the vicinity of Bermuda).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well Kevyn, if the planet continues to cool (as it has for the past 10 years) for another 10 years, you and your buds are going to look like a ship full of henny pennies droping off the edge of political relevancy.
The resulting backlash against all things environmental will create far more damage to the environment in the long term.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – big ‘if’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Kevyn Says:
July 4th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“Before you try convincing wat that human induced climate change is real you practice by trying to convince a flat-erather that gravity is real. Oh that’s right, gravity is an invention of the round-earth religion to make them feel better about sending all those pressganged sailors to their doom falling off the edge of the world (somewhere in the vicinity of Bermuda).”
why would someone who didn’t believe in gravity be worried about anyone falling off anything?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda barunda Says:
July 4th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
> Well Kevyn, if the planet continues to cool (as it has for the past 10 years)
that might sould like a more likely proposition of it actually had cooled over the last ten years (which it hasn’t).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“shunda – big ‘if’”
It certainly is, cause “if” its true the green movement will be in the dictionary under a description of deception.
There are much more solid environmental causes to provoke people to responsible action, deforestation, water polution etc are all things people can see and be motivated to action.
AGW is a dangerous belief system that is being rapidly contaminated by politics and dual agenda’s.
It WILL end in tears
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“that might sould like a more likely proposition of it actually had cooled over the last ten years (which it hasn’t).”
Yes it has, you really need to get away from Al Gore and his manbearpig controversy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry wat, not rising to that bait. You’ve seen the evidence but just don’t accept it. You don’t need me a bit. If I’m happy to accept that and move on, you should be too. Oh, that’s right, you’re side is losing the argument. Right, so you do have a problem, but I really can’t be bothered helping. Go read Gareth Morgan’s book. Then you can post a report here, which I’m sure will be so outrageous that bj, sir henry and others (who are way better on this topic then me anyway; I bow to you guys) will be roused to tear you the new asshole you’re begging for. I do promise to watch
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Go read Gareth Morgan’s book.”
Valis, have you read “Air Con” yet? facinating stuff.
It would probably cause your respect for bucolic old saint humpty to drop a bit, but you should be ok due to your respect for “real” science
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda, I might start considering advice on science from you when you show you can string a logical argument together. Remember this unfinished thread where you also failed to do so? http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/05/21/general-debate-may-21-2009/comment-page-2/#comment-78415
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Our respect for Bucolic Old Sir Henry is unassailable. The same cannot be said of Ian Wishart, who is to Sir Henry as Pinocchio is to Geppetto.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Remember this unfinished thread where you also failed to do so?”
How could I forget.
And I we will continue it soon….I promise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“who is to Sir Henry as Pinocchio is to Geppetto.”
Hey, I guess Pinocchio turned into a real boy after all
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And I we will continue it soon….I promise.
That’s great. You’ve said it before of course, but one lives in hope.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey, I guess Pinocchio turned into a real boy after all
Now he just needs to stop lying
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Even if you don’t accept AGW, pumping CO2 into the air will lead to more CO2 dissolved in the oceans which will make them more acidic (lower ph). That will set off a chain of changes with detrimental effects, particularly to fisheries.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn,
Hilarious sarcasm, such as you just attempted, was also employed against those sceptics whose arguments eventually demolished that totem of the warmist movement, the Hockeystick chart…
Kahikatea,
According to NASA – itself a corrupted bastion of professional alarmists – temperatures have been in a slight decline for almost the whole of the last decade:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
But surely, if the impact of CO2 is as powerful as you believe, you should easily be able to point us to a chart showing that today’s temperatures – driven by that CO2 – are the highest they’ve been not just for a few decades, but for at least a thousand years? Surely all this unnatural warming must stick out like a sore thumb on such a chart? Can you do that?
No, you can’t, because there’s nothing remarkable about today’s temperatures.
And isn’t it the case that computer models are the only “evidence” you have for the theory? Can you show how these models reliably predicted the last decade’s climate?
No, you can’t, because they all wrongly predicted continued warming.
And isn’t it the case that enhanced polar warming is a fingerprint of the AGW theory, because the drier air means the natural greenhouse effect is diminished and CO2 forcing would therefore be more noticable? Can you show us evidence for this enhanced polar warming?
No, you can’t, because there’s no such warming.
Valis,
Just like “Runaway” Russel, then; you assure us that the evidence exists, but decline to engage in debate.
As for your hero sirhenry, last I recall he still maintained that the Hockeystick was correct (really). However, the two authoritative sources he cited in its defence actually contradicted it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yup, I like the company I keep way better than yours.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gosh Wat
When you read that first chart, do you understand what part of it has to do with CLIMATE? I can see it because I know what to look for… because I have a lot of experience with noisy data sets. Lets try it in context. Here’s the source page…
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
The “flat” over the past decade is not apparent here…. nor is it so apparent that it is flat. That’s your reading, but even in this decade it indicates an increasing temperature anomaly from 0.37 to 0,58 if my eyeballs are not deceived.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat dabney Says:
July 4th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
> According to NASA – itself a corrupted bastion of professional alarmists – temperatures have been in a slight decline for almost the whole of the last decade:
congratulations – you managed to link to a graph. The graph you linked to didn’t actually back up your assertion, but I guess you can’t have everything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj – the ‘noisy data sets’ you refer to – is wat one of them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Have a look at the satelite data, tells a different story.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But surely, if the impact of CO2 is as powerful as you believe
No… we don’t regard it as particularly powerful, just the LARGEST influence on our current climate change, and by no means the only one.
you should easily be able to point us to a chart showing that today’s temperatures – driven by that CO2 – are the highest they’ve been not just for a few decades, but for at least a thousand years? Surely all this unnatural warming must stick out like a sore thumb on such a chart? Can you do that?
Wrong. The problem is that barring the CO2 changes we would have expected declining temperatures given all the other inputs. They are going up without any OTHER reason. Even, as shown in the graph you so proudly pointed to, in the depth of one of the deeper solar minimums of the last 7 solar cycles.
Since detailed measurement only goes back about 150 years the paleoclimate record depends on proxies. I tend to regard the “hockey stick as having a handle wrapped in padding. It is hard to be sure where the stick really is… but there is another problem with your “challenge”. Just happening to pick the medieval warm period as the starting point is a problem… lets look at the 2000 year chart instead… just to make this a little clearer.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png
The point is not the absolute temperature but the “attack” of the increased temperatures, IN THE ABSENCE of the things we reckon were working then. Confusing the cause of previous warming and we all know it was not CO2, with the meteoric rise in temperatures this century, is a lot harder when you look at the slope. Even at the end of the ice-age warming never EVER happened at this rate and without a hint of anything that could possibly drive it so hard… except CO2.
No, you can’t, because there’s nothing remarkable about today’s temperatures.
I think I HAVE shown the remarkable thing about todays temperatures and it is scarier every time I look at it.
And isn’t it the case that computer models are the only “evidence” you have for the theory? Can you show how these models reliably predicted the last decade’s climate?
A nice official discussion of climate models.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=105
More detail on your specific problems there is this…
http://www.grist.org/article/climate-models-are-unproven/
and this
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/is-climate-modelling-science/langswitch_lang/sk
and this
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/short-and-simple-arguments-for-why-climate-can-be-predicted/langswitch_lang/sk
and since the models do not predict temperature in a given year, or even a given decade, only a trend, the fact that you were wrong about the FIRST graph gives us a reason to believe the models, which did predict warming for the decade, rather than you.
No, you can’t, because they all wrongly predicted continued warming.
Which has happened, contrary to your assertions.
Can you show us evidence for this enhanced polar warming?
You’re joking, right?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Since science doesn’t support your assertions and actual scientists are actually scared sh!tless, your story seems like something you are trying to convince yourself of, much more than something that is presented for us.
I suggest that you take the sh!t speculations from the blogosphere and toss it in the bin, and then study the actual science in so far as this is possible. Try to assume for a start, that the scientists are being honest. They are generally VERY honest… to a fault.. and then work from there.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There’s a longer post in the moderation queue. See it DOES happen to me sometimes too.. which goes over the rest of Wat’s post. He did manage to get every single thing he said wrong in some respect.
Who say we can’t be perfect?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wouldn’t want to slow you down, bj
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I think I HAVE shown the remarkable thing about todays temperatures and it is scarier every time I look at it.”
That is not what is happening at the moment at all, I have respect for you BJ, but the latest temperatures are not scary, 2008 was the coldest in a decade and 09 may be colder.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In this particular Global Warming debate, Shunda Barunda is winning because his is the most recent post. His lead could be lost at any time though. Lots of jostling, each driver firmly strapped into his own vehicle, reading his dials and gauges. Round and round we go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda
The single year means nothing, and the trend is upwards, even in Wat’s original graph that is obvious…
It is also the 9th warmest year since 1880.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
It is at the trough of the 11 year solar cycle, in this case one of the deeper troughs we have recorded since 1975.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/fig1.jpg
If the SUN were the principle cause of warming now, it should have been a bit COLDER.
As for 2009-2012 all I can offer is that it is likely is that we will see the 1998 record broken by 2012.
We are apparently going to have an el-nino which affects the “noise” in the signal.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/ENSO-summary.shtml
So the record could be broken this year
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4BT49G20081230
…but I tend to doubt that as the Northern winter was still getting less insolation. Giving the sun its due.
I am sure you respect me Shunda, but do you respect me enough to pay attention to my fear? That’s a big ask. I’ve not missed on any big prediction.
I need to see how the data shapes for July and maybe place a bet here…
https://www.ipredict.co.nz/Main.php?do=stock_detail&stock=TEMP.2009
I just stumbled across this recently.
Basically this looks fairly likely on current information. I don’t often bet money, but this one is falling close to home. I believe I know enough about it to beat the naive odds that appear to be in place and 15 cents on the dollar looks like an attractive return.
Of course I also have to convince myself that it is an honest site and there will be a payout.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I am sure you respect me Shunda, but do you respect me enough to pay attention to my fear? That’s a big ask. I’ve not missed on any big prediction.”
I’m listening for sure, I was an AGW believer until recently you must realise, I do believe the climate is warming I’m just not sure that humans are causing the majority of it.
You out right reject Wisharts “air con” based on Gareths poor debunking of it, but I can tell you from having read it, his criticism is very unfair and inacurate.
I am not stupid BJ, and I can smell a rat with this whole AGW deal, chuck in the massive political advantage the UN stands to gain from carbon trading, and we have the motive.
Please read this (if you can) and tell me why Wishart is wrong.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/06/i-did-warn-you-of-this-in-air-con.html#comments
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
Do you believe that CO2 levels are rising?
If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for at least most of that rise?
Do you believe that increased CO2 levels will increase the “greenhouse effect”?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kahikatea,
This is the NASA suface temperature graph from that page:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
As even you will be able to see, there has been no warming for a decade, and the last few years the trend has been downwards. And remember, the surface temperature measurement is subject to a significant upward bias because of the urban heat island effect. Most people consider the satellite data to be more reliable, because it is untainted by the effects of urbanisation. Perhaps you could tell me what I’m supposed to find alarming in the satellite data:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Incidentally, in November last year the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, lied through his teeth and said that “we’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]“.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/07/truly-inconvenient-truths-about-climate-change-being-ignored-ipccs-pachauri-says-warming-is-taking-place-at-a-much-faster-rate/
Why is the IPCC lying about this? Would you buy a used car from the IPCC?
bjchip,
- “The problem is that barring the CO2 changes we would have expected declining temperatures”
You see, now you’re changing the entire claim, aren’t you.
Before, we were guaranteed warming, warming and more warming, because you claimed that CO2 was so potent that it dwarfed everything else. But now, since nothing of the sort eventuated, you are saying “aha, but if there hadn’t been the CO2 we would have expected cooling”, which is an entirely different story.
How shameless and dishonest are you jokers?
Let us know when you stop moving those goalposts around.
As for the longer term history, I have previously pointed you to a site which has collated a huge number independant studies showing that the Medieval Warm Period was at least as warm as today, and most probably warmer: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
So what do you do? You search around to find some graphs which don’t include this inconvenient evidence.
As for the enhanced polar warming, you say I must be joking. However, the site you link to – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs – supports my position, not yours. Please, tell me where it shows enhanced warming in the Antarctic.
It doesn’t, does it. There is no such effect; an effect we must see if your theory is correct.
Therefore your theory has been falsified.
- “Since science doesn’t support your assertions and actual scientists are actually scared sh!tles”
You mean, apart from the thousands of scientists who reject the theory? Or are they, by definition, deemed to be not “actual scientists”? Is that how it works?
You say that science doesn’t support my assertions, but I haven’t made any; you have. And they are contradicted by the facts.
Now, here’s something interesting. It’s well known that the wheels fell of the recent Australian attempt to impose onerous new legislation on this subject. The story behind it is that a Senator Steve Fielding posed three questions on the subject to the relevant minister, and then had the official response audited by scientists. Needless to say, rather than being “scared sh!tles”, the scientists actually found that the reasons and evidence were full of holes. It makes for very interesting reading:
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/wong-fielding/7-carter-evans-franks-kininmonth-due-diligence-on-wong.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – you are pitting our bj chip against your Ian Wishart. No matter what bj says to you (patiently, thoroughly, painstakingly) you budge not one millimetre and play your ‘Wishart’ card every time. Saying, ‘Yes but… read AirCon over and over isn’t going to further the discussion at all. Do you think bj (or any of us) will rifle through Wishart’s words an suddenly ejaculate, “By Christ, you know, that man is right! How could we have been so stupid!!!
Shunda, with all due respect, your view on climate change is as ossified as your view on children’s behaviour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Shunda,
Do you believe that CO2 levels are rising?”
Yes, this is normal for a warming climate after an ice age.
“If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for at least most of that rise?”
No not most of it, definately some of it though. Perhaps you could explain how deforestation affects the ability of the planet to reabsorb CO2 and how plants find it harder to absorb CO2 from fossil fuels. Remaining vegetation absorbs natural CO2 more efficiently, which makes the human component seem larger than it really is.
” Do you believe that increased CO2 levels will increase the “greenhouse effect”?”
Only in theory, the greenhouse effect is primarily caused by water vapour and the relationship between different gases is incredibly complex and poorly understood. The planet has had much higher CO2 levels in the past without a direct link to higher temperatures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat dabney Says:
July 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
> kahikatea,
> This is the NASA suface temperature graph from that page:
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
> As even you will be able to see, there has been no warming for a decade, and the last few years the trend has been downwards.
I caqn see that a trend line through it for the last ten years would be sloping upwards, not downwards as you claimed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Shunda, with all due respect, your view on climate change is as ossified as your view on children’s behaviour.”
Well there’s another area where policy is based on psuedo science.
I have no motivation to take either side on climate change, I am only basing my understanding on the facts I have found.
The science is not settled, I am asking politely for you guys to show me why I am wrong, I will change my position if the evidence is there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – have you based your belief in Jesus on the same process of fact gathering, weighing and deciding and if so, how have you evaded the ‘is based on psuedo science’ aspect? My point is, the ‘fact-go-round’ could keep you hopping for a very long time, paralysing your ability to act. My suggestion is: find a wise elder or council of same and take their advice, while keeping your investigative side turning over. I recommend that you overlook Wishart.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda
I will when time and opportunity present, look at Wishart’s book. The thing about this is that I start out knowing more about the subject than either of Wishart OR Morgan. I can probably go through the entire book and provide refutation or logical explanation of everything in it without referring to notes at all… WITH RESPECT TO THE SCIENCE.
A discussion of the arctic ice… here:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
and
here:
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/_45146192_ice_extent_466.gif
Wishart is wishing that he knew what will happen by September of this year, we all do, but there are 2 months of summer melt season to go, and the pack ice is “new” and thin. With an El-Nino now probable, the question of global heat distribution and precipitation distribution is important.
One year means nothing. Lets see what happens over 5 or more.
http://www.socc.ca/cms/en/socc/seaIce/pastSeaIce.aspx
Note that the summer lows are getting lower? This has been a continuous feature of the maps. The recent solar minimum MAY give some relief in the trend this year, but I wouldn’t count heavily on it.
The science is solid.
What I see on the page you reference, is a tirade against world government… which has an alternative called global anarchy. That alternative has prevailed since Moby Dick was a Minnow.
Do I want “one world government” – I am pretty agnostic about that.
I don’t care if we are invaded by Plextarians from the planet Pngzwwtz and they impose a solution (that doesn’t include extermination of the human species), we HAVE to start paying for use of the commons.
I don’t even care that much who gets paid, just that there is a cost associated with it. Social inequity can only be addressed if enough civilization survives to have a meaningful “society”. I would prefer it were not “Goldman-Sacks-The-Planet” but I accept EVEN THAT, if it gets the job done.
The question he raises is whether there are people in the UN who are using this issue to leverage additional UN control.
The alternative hypothesis he needs to consider, is that the problem is real and there is no other way to address it.
He appears to have rejected “the problem is real” for reasons that have more to do with his background and beliefs than the science. I do not think he ever got to the second part of that.
If the problem is global as it is, there really IS no other method of addressing it.
I do not think he understands the science well enough. Certainly I have heard nothing at all NEW in the way of arguments. If someone were to specify some of his I would be happy to address the scientific arguments.
I will not buy his book. I won’t buy Gareth Morgan’s either.
I will look for them in the library when possible, and I will look at his first, but if I do get hold of it there will almost certainly be a series of posts here that itemize its scientific shortcomings.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
However it is set up, someone WILL have to be paid and the processing will apply to all nations on the planet. If it is not the UN and it is instead “Goldman-Sacks-The-Planet” it will be Goldman that will have effectively taken control of world government.
I haven’t noticed that they are an improvement on the UN.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda asked:
“Perhaps you could explain how deforestation affects the ability of the planet to reabsorb CO2 and how plants find it harder to absorb CO2 from fossil fuels.”
I am unaware of anyone claiming that plants find it harder to absorb CO2 from fossil fuels. It takes a mass spectrometer to determine where CO2 comes from, and plants don’t care. Their update rate is not dependent on the source of the CO2, but I accept that it will improve slightly with higher concentrations of CO2 (within reason).
Deforestation does affect the ability of the planet to absorb CO2 as forests are in general more efficient at using sunlight to convert CO2 to captured carbon than roads or cultivated ground. However the biggest issue with deforestation with respect to CO2 levels is that it is usually achieved by burning some or all of the forest cover thus releasing large amounts of CO2.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Do you believe that CO2 levels are rising?”
Yes, this is normal for a warming climate after an ice age.
No it isn’t. We aren’t looking at “after an ice-age” now.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png
This is what we are looking at. 50 times faster than after any Ice-Age.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Shunda – have you based your belief in Jesus on the same process of fact gathering, weighing and deciding and if so, how have you evaded the ‘is based on psuedo science’ aspect?”
When you eliminate the popular but ignorant rantings of modern Christianity about creation science, there is no conflict with Christianity and modern science.
My understanding has changed dramatically since I became a Christian, as a young and naive believer I trusted church leadership, now I don’t.
I have found the Christian religion goes far deeper than what you will see in your average church, my faith is not based on the church.
You need to stop discrediting me because I am a Christian greenfly, you may be in danger of replicating the same ‘us and them’ mentality of much of the church if you don’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I guess BJ, when I see graphs like that below on Wiki, I tend to think people are trying to hide something.
Note how the data is plotted on the lower graph with a different scale used, seemingly to hide the increase in the suns energy over the past century.
Why would this be done if not to hide the truth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot-number.png
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda! You’re a Christian greenfly? A long lost Brother!
Nah, I’m not trying to discredit you Shunda. I’m asking how committed you are to knowing all of the facts before taking a stand on an issue. I have thrown my hat into the ‘warming’ ring, in part because I have confidence in many of the key spokespeople for that ‘camp’, not just because of the facts that I’ve been able to amass (the gathering of which can be such an onerous task for a busy person). By the same token, I don’t feel obliged to ‘read Wishart’s book’ because I’ve read some of his other ‘works’ and his world-view doesn’t resonate with mine (at all).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The thing is greenfly, I would work together with AGW believers whether it’s true or not. There is nothing bad about bringing about sustainable use of our environment, it has to happen for our own survival.
What concerns me is the money aspect. I do not trust human nature to do the right thing when a buck is to be made, people are greedy selfish pigs and you can bet some of the greediest are lining up to clip the ticket of climate change.
Carbon trading could even be detrimental for a relatively clean country like NZ, we could even see a net degrading of our environment.
Dosen’t this aspect even slightly bother you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – yes. I’d like to see the reality of our plight clearly described and a practical solution proposed and implemented. What do you think of the chances of that happening?
If that doesn’t look like it is to be, then look to weather the storm, because my reading of the situation is that there’s going to be a lot of turbulence and the atmosphere we have grown accustomed to will lose it’s temper.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda asked:
“Note how the data is plotted on the lower graph with a different scale used, seemingly to hide the increase in the suns energy over the past century.
Why would this be done if not to hide the truth?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot-number.png
I suspect that the graphing software simply shifted range because there was one point at or above 250 on the lowest set of data points whereas the other two sets were below 250 for all their data.
Given that this data was placed on a wiki page with no apparent agenda, what would the author be trying to show by deliberately graphing the data plots with different ranges? They have provided a link to the raw data for anyone to use to check their results.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Personally I think we should do what we can, but I believe the world will become politically very unstable over the next 20 years.
The more I study history and the events that trigger wars, the more concerned I become, globally I think we have reached a cross roads and the end of an era to be honest.
Perhaps we should focus more on a local level and on the basics, i don’t see how carbon trading will do anything but hasten political instability.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Given that this data was placed on a wiki page with no apparent agenda, what would the author be trying to show by deliberately graphing the data plots with different ranges? They have provided a link to the raw data for anyone to use to check their results.”
Maybe, but to a casual observer it convieniently hides an otherwise significant increase in solar activity at the time of global warming, wiki editors are also known to be pro AGW.
If this was a one off fair enough, but it isn’t, why produce dodgy ‘hockey stick’ graphs if the science is there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is no way to sedgeway this in (I’ve been writing).
I’ve found a solution to my chainsaw dilemma, right where I wasn’t expecting it.
I’ve been pondering over how to deal with the stacks of branches that have amassed since I began thinning out the trees in my food forest to let more light into the newly-made vegetable plots.
The simple answer would be to start up a chainsaw and turn them into fire-box sized logs but I’ve eschewed noisy, fossil-fuel driven tools of all sorts, so can’t take the easy path. I’ve tried hatcheting them into shorter lengths but I’ve not got that much time, nor does swinging a sharp steel-headed tool around seem a safe thing to do, so it’ll have to be a saw.
And that’s just what I found in a second-hand shop 800 kms from home, while visiting family in Nelson. Not a small, compact, easy to pack kind of saw either. This was of the two-person variety, a handle at each end and over a metre of toothed-steel between them and just a dozen or so centimetres too long to fit in the boot of the car. My daughter, travelling in the back seat, was less than delighted with my find. She’d been complaining that it was like going on holiday in a garden shed, with all the rakes, hoes and assorted cultivators I’d already bought and levered into the back and she glowered when I added a sharp-toothed saw to the collection.
Once I’d got my saw home and given it some close scrutiny, I realised I’d found a treasure – an old Great American Henry Disston & Sons classic with hardened steel blade and teeth in perfect order.
Both handles are as new and even the emblem has survived un-faded. I’m almost reluctant to take it outside and use it, but I will, just as soon as my sons return home. It’s a two-person saw and too big to wield alone. I expect to develop biceps like those on a chimpanzee, sawing logs for the fire, but my bat-like hearing will remain undamaged, so quiet will that operation be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Let us know how you get on greenfly, if the teeth are sharp you may be surprised how quick you can get through it. I suggest bundling the logs on a frame and doing a whole lot at once.
I have thought along those lines myself after a firewood gathering trip.
When I worked out the vehicle cost and chainsaw cost I realised I would be lucky to have gathered enough energy in the firewood to off set the fuel spent getting it!!
I decided the most efficient use of my truck would be to collect logs and take them home, then cut up with an electric chainsaw (still quiet greenfly) or cut up by hand.
One thing I realised is that true sustainability would require alot more elbow grease. (I am considering buying shares in an elbow grease factory as soon as I can find one)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No Wat… I didn’t change the argument.
I added another problem for you to try to ignore.
First of all, I DID show that temperatures were still increasing. That was in answer to your original point. If they are not increasing as fast as YOU think they should that’s your problem, not mine. No climate model predicts results for a specific year or gives you anything more than a rough idea what a given decade will do.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png
I reckon they’re going up quite fast enough thanks… and they would not be doing that absent the effects of CO2. There is no other forcing function in the data of the past 150 years that can account for all of this. Note that there IS a solar component, it is simply not large enough to drive us to this angle of attack.
Now the good Dr Spencer is pretty much alone in his concerns but even HIS data shows warming… go ahead and look at the first half of his data, go ahead and eyeball it, toss the outliers and guess at a mean temperature. This is HIS data mind you, back to 1979, so we ought to see the 11 year solar cycle imposed as well, this is a trough right now. Previous trough should be around 1997, before that 1986 and then 1975 (if the satellite had been launched earlier). So the 79-81 data should be a solar max…. but the average in that early series is low compared to the solar max we just saw, the one in the middle got nailed by Pinutabo so no drama about that. The point is… the minimums keep going up. The maximums keep going up. It is a little bit higher each cycle. The first half is lower than the second half. I think you should be able to see that.
He (Spencer) likes to stir the pot, but he is alone in all of climate science and he has not actually published much of the stuff that appears on his blog.
Here’s a simple discussion of what climate scientists reckon are some of his more prominent errors.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/spencers-folly-3/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
Before, we were guaranteed warming, warming and more warming,
NO!.. though you’ve got that too. Trying to exaggerate what we tell you and what the scientists tell you so you can have a straw man to beat up is a common tactic, but even the straw man is still standing. If you can’t read the signal out of the noise that’s your problem. Not a problem with the science.
What has been guaranteed is that the long term trend is upwards and accelerating. So far there is no indication that that is wrong at all.
How shameless and dishonest are you jokers?
I have nothing to be ashamed of Wat, you OTOH, can start being ashamed of yourself as of this comment.
So what do you do? You search around to find some graphs which don’t include this inconvenient evidence.
About the MWP? Come on Wat, I looked at the entire history back to the Ice Age. The Holocene optimum was warmer too, the MWP may have been warmer, but NEITHER is particularly relevant to what we are seeing today.
What do you think this is, some sort of SIMPLE climate system? No climate scientist CARES whether it was warmer or colder then, as the forcing and the climate response were much slower than what we are doing now. Look at the slope man! Look at how FAST this is happening.
You said “polar” warming. The Arctic is a pole too you know, and the temperature anomaly THERE is +1 degrees already… actually hit +2 last summer IIRC
For the Antarctic there is this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/science/earth/22climate.html?fta=y
We do not have the same understanding of the deep Antarctic as for other places on the planet. The facts appear to be inconvenient for you still.
Now lets examine
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter
http://www.desmogblog.com/bob-carters-climate-myopia
Given the choice of scientist he made, it is pretty clear that Fielding himself has an axe to grind. Given the choice of scientist he made, the outcome was predetermined. Carter sets himself against everyone else but is NOT a climate scientist of any repute except in the right wing blogosphere.
Wat… I don’t have much good to say about your post. I’ve little enough time but you at least provided me with some practice.
Tomorrow is the meeting.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I find it interesting that the graph that Pachauri is claimed to have presented in 2008 isn’t accessible. I can surmise that since he would be talking from notes prepared in advance that his data series went cut-off at 2007… which if you take the specific dataset displayed by Watts-Up would show a shockingly steep rise in temperature…
However, it is more convenient and shocking to simply claim that the man is lying.
Somehow I can’t bring myself to believe it happened the way it was presented. Especially considering the source.
Sorry… I can’t do much when the assertion isn’t even backed by evidence.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have no motivation to take either side on climate change, I am only basing my understanding on the facts I have found.
Shunda, you vacillate between interested citizen searching for scientific truth, and UN-taking-over-the-world conspiracy theorist. Makes it a little difficult to take you seriously. I suggest separating the two questions for now. It should be obvious which one to deal with first.
The science is not settled, I am asking politely for you guys to show me why I am wrong, I will change my position if the evidence is there.
Yes, you are being polite, unlike wat, and we all appreciate that. Keep listening to what bj says. That way lies the truth.
When you eliminate the popular but ignorant rantings of modern Christianity about creation science, there is no conflict with Christianity and modern science.
Well I’ve told you why there IS conflict in our other thread and you’ve not provided a decent rebuttal, so looking forward to your next attempt.
Personally I think we should do what we can, but I believe the world will become politically very unstable over the next 20 years.
The more I study history and the events that trigger wars, the more concerned I become, globally I think we have reached a cross roads and the end of an era to be honest.
We agree!
Perhaps we should focus more on a local level and on the basics, i don’t see how carbon trading will do anything but hasten political instability.
Then tell us how you’d achieve reductions in emissions. The next question is how we sell your ideas to the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Shunda, you vacillate between interested citizen searching for scientific truth, and UN-taking-over-the-world conspiracy theorist. Makes it a little difficult to take you seriously.”
Well its not a conspiracy if I base my opinion on what the UN have publicly stated. As long ago as 1994 the UN was talking about global polution taxes, the UN development program stated:
“There must be a ‘New World Social Charter’ where the world will redistribute wealth as it cannot survive one-quarter rich and three-quarters poor, and where the UN must become the principal custodian of global human security ”
It goes on to suggest a promising way to pay for all this is a “global tax on polution”. It doesn’t sound like much of those carbon dollars will be spent on planting trees does it.
No conspiracy Valis, fact.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, Shunda, I think the questions of whether the UN is right in its assessment of the problem and how to best deal with it on a global scale if they are, are both very interesting. But you missed my point.
The conspiracy I mean is that therefore the UN has invented AGW rather than reacted to it. You have made this claim, or near enough to it, in the midst of debate about the science. That this may fit into someone’s plans for “global domination” matter not a jot as to whether the science is in fact valid or not, so it won’t help you to mix the two.
And would it be cheeky to mention that what you quote talks of a carbon tax (Green policy since 1993), not an ETS?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The conspiracy I mean is that therefore the UN has invented AGW rather than reacted to it. You have made this claim, or near enough to it, in the midst of debate about the science.”
Well its pretty damned convienient you have to admit!
Helen Clark is now leading the outfit that said this and she is hardly a pilar of truth and integrity, she got the job pretty quick too.
I am afraid I think AGW is just to tempting for political gain, I don’t think science matters one iota now, its too late, much bigger forces have taken over and the issue will probably get more confused, not clearer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda, if you think it is tempting for political gain, you should see what Goldman-Sacks-The-Planet has in mind for you. Believe me, a UN with a CO2 tax is WAY better.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine/5
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well its pretty damned convienient you have to admit!
I don’t at all. Environmentalists were talking about this decades ago. That the UN caught on before many is to their credit, not an indictment. That there is always a possibility the worst possible reason for someone’s motivation could be true, doesn’t make it likely. Its not 50/50 – an argument we’ve had before elsewhere!
Helen Clark is now leading the outfit that said this and she is hardly a pilar of truth and integrity, she got the job pretty quick too.
Agreed though she’s hardly the worst of the lot.
I am afraid I think AGW is just to tempting for political gain, I don’t think science matters one iota now, its too late, much bigger forces have taken over and the issue will probably get more confused, not clearer.t.
We share your fears, but truth does matter and the truth of the science will continue to matter. Don’t give up. In the end, that’s really all we can ask of each other.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It seems like we’re screwed either way BJ, I think I’ll get some fruit trees off greenfly and start my enclave asap.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“We share your fears, but truth does matter and the truth of the science will continue to matter. Don’t give up. In the end, that’s really all we can ask of each other.”
Well I am keen to get more involved in true sustainabilty regardless of the science, and like I have said before, we don’t need AGW as motivation, we should be doing it any way.
But I do think there are turbulent times ahead, so many people I talk to have this bizarre blind optimism that everything from the economy to the environment will some how be ok with out any attitude change what so ever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda (and this is a serious question – I’m genuinely curious to know):
How did you choose Ian Wishart to be your source of information on climate change, rather than someone like Gareth Morgan, George Monbiot or Tim Flannery?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“How did you choose Ian Wishart to be your source of information on climate change, rather than someone like Gareth Morgan, George Monbiot or Tim Flannery?”
Firstly I have a computer and I am by no means limited to Ian Wisharts “information”
When I saw Gareth Morgan on that pathetic piece on sinking islands on TV1, and when I heard he had suggested we all vote for the Greens in order to colapse our economy, I decided I didn’t have to look too much further.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – could it be that you are drawn to anyone waving the ‘conspiracy’ flag? Did those American astronauts walk on the moon, do you think? That flag just didn’t look right, did it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whats up greenfly, you seem a little cranky.
I don’t have a lot of time for conspiracy theorists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When I saw Gareth Morgan on that pathetic piece on sinking islands on TV1, and when I heard he had suggested we all vote for the Greens in order to colapse our economy, I decided I didn’t have to look too much further.
That actually parses (at least for an American) that you didn’t need to find anyone besides Gareth Morgan….
I don’t think that is what you meant.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
pathetic – causing or evoking pity, sympathetic sadness, sorrow,
I too was moved Shunda.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whats up guys, I say:
“Well I am keen to get more involved in true sustainabilty regardless of the science, and like I have said before, we don’t need AGW as motivation, we should be doing it any way.
But I do think there are turbulent times ahead, so many people I talk to have this bizarre blind optimism that everything from the economy to the environment will some how be ok with out any attitude change what so ever.”
And you guys are on the offensive?
Is it cause I won’t fully convert to AGW?
You chaps are hard to please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
You said earlier (above) that you didn’t believe most of the CO2 concentration increase was from human causes.
Have a closer look at http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_p ng
What I find really convincing is that the CO2 concentrations are rising at a rate approximately proportional to the rate that we are pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. The concentrations rise slowly after 1800 as we started burning coal in quantity, and increase faster, and the increase accelerates around the end of WW2 and hasn’t stopped. This is entirely consistent with the increase being dominated by our CO2 emissions, and inconsistent with explanations based on natural causes. (Note that this rate of increase doesn’t appear in the preceeding 400,000 years.)
Trevor.
(Thanks for posting that link BJ)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Try:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)