Try:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png

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)

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)

pathetic – causing or evoking pity, sympathetic sadness, sorrow,

I too was moved Shunda.

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)

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)

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)

“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 (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)

“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)

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)

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)

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)

“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)

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)

“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)

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)

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)

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)

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)