There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century.
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20100315a.pdf
Let’s look into their statements and see if they have provided support for this assertion:
1. Temperature
Since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C
The first sentence is data cherry-picking the time period to maximise the reported rate of increase. (ref: http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/howtheipccinventedanewcalculus )
Note that they do not say whether or not this rate is unprecedented or unnatural
Number of record hot day maximums at Australian climate reference stations
All this chart demonstrates is that the planet is warming. It does not demonstrate that it is due to man’s emissions.
Key Points
• The number of days with record hot temperatures has increased each decade over the past 50 years
• There have been fewer record cold days each decade
• 2000 to 2009 was Australia’s warmest decade on record
These prove that the planet is warming. It says nothing about whether or not it is due to man’s emissions.
3. Our Oceans
From 1870 to 2007, the global average sea level rose by close to 200mm. Sea levels rose at an average of 1.7mm per year during the 20th century and about 3.0mm per year from 1993-2009.
1. This demonstrates that the planet is warming, not that it is due to man’s activities
2. The rate from 1993 to 2009 is data cherry picking. The rate has varied and was fast from 1920 to 1950. This is usually considered to be before the time man’s emissions were sufficient to have had a significant effect.
3. Sea level rise at the rate of 1.7 mm per year (20th Century) or even double or tipple that is not dangerous, catastrophic or any other scary adjective. It is inconsequential. There is a cost, but it is small and may be more than offset by the benefits of a warmer and wetter planet.
Ocean Acidification
Recent research shows that ocean acidification decreases the ability of marine plants and animals to form shells. Such effects are now being observed at the base of the food chain in the Southern Ocean.
600 million years of paleo-climate evidence shows that sea life and coral reefs thrive when the planet is warmer and struggle when it is colder. Throughout most of this period CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was much higher than at present and sea life thrived, irrespective of the CO2 concentration. This seems like another massive exaggeration.
4. Our Atmosphere
Global CO2 concentrations have risen rapidly over the last century. Methane, which is another greenhouse gas has shown similar increases.
The implication is that higher CO2 concentrations are causing the warming.
However, correlation does not prove causation.
(One of the most significant natural observations made is that birds chirp therefore forcing the sun to rise.)
CO2 concentration increased in all the previous warm periods too. But that wasn’t caused by man. There is not persuasive evidence that the increasing CO2 is the main cause of the modern warming.
5. What this means.
Warming is projected to be lower … in Tasmania and higher in central and north-western Australia. These changes will be felt through an increase in the number of hot days.
These projections seems to be a bit inconsistent with the warming being due to increasing greenhouse effectiveness. Increasing greenhouse effectiveness predicts that temperatures will rise more at the poles than in the tropics, more in winter than in summer and more at night than in the day time.
There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century.
This is an often repeated assertion. None of the evidence shown in this document is persuasive to support that assertion. The fact the CSIRO and BOM have provided this report and have provided no more evidence in support of the assertion than the IPCC AR4, WG1 Chapter 6, demonstrates that the evidence is very weak. There is no persuasive evidence, as far as I can see.
Climate change is real
Our observations clearly demonstrate that climate change is real.
No one is arguing with that statement. What many people are not accepting is the statement that:
There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century.
The evidence to support this assertion seems to be weak and not persuasive. The fact that CSIRO and BOM cannot provide a more persuasive case than this is telling. On this basis, it would be negligent to proceed with ETS/CPRS.
]]>There is much we do know. Climategate has brought welcome insights into the argument. “Hide the decline” would have to be one of the ultimate revelations. The removal of the medieval warm period from the graphs and other graph manipulations. The hidden agenda of the united nations establishing a world government. The who’s who of global warming and who they really work for. Kevin Rudd’s statements are almost identical to James Hansen’s who is Al Gores science advisor. Etc etc…...
I know many members are already writing to newspapers, politicians, organizations and government departments, which I think is a wonderful commitment to action. It takes a lot of time doing things like that. It is commendable that you do this.
Perhaps it is time to put this spirit of resistance into action.
What do you think?
]]>Climate will change and we must adapt (as we have in the past)
]]>” Charles Manson, the man who masterminded the brutal murders of nine people in the summer of 1969 in an effort to spark a race war in America, has adopted a new cause from his prison cell in California – he is a prophet for the global warming movement – sharing common ground with top academics, environmentalists and even the White House science czar in calling for large numbers of human beings to be exterminated in the name of saving the Earth….”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/charles-manson-global-warming-prophet.html
.
]]>Climate Modeling
Climate modeling is actually ‘one’ of the ways we come to understand climate on earth. That’s because we don’t have extra planets that are just like earth to experiment on. Some say that models can be wrong. It’s a common mistake people make… the point is not that models ‘can’ be wrong. The point is models are ‘always’ wrong, that’s because models are not real, they are models. But that does not mean that they are not relevant and useful for understanding how things work. The truth is that if you only use measurements and raw data, you can’t even get close to the truth about climate.
In science, it is often preferable to do an experiment. But to do an experiment with global climate, we would need more planets just like earth to test. Then we could try different mixes of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and see what happens. However, since we don’t have any extra planets, we need to model the climate
The reality is that raw data is terribly misleading when measuring the earths temperature. Many aberrations need to be compensated for. That means that if you want to get a more accurate picture, you need to model the measurements and correct for aberrations. You make a model and test it. And others test it. And you refine it. And you refine it some more. It will never be perfect, and it can always be improved, especially when dealing with complex systems like climate
An Important Point
Many people (on this forum as well such as CR, HQ, Colin Dixon, Colin Davidson -Engineer and other MODERATES who are deniers) , falsely assume that models are not perfect therefore we don’t understand climate. This is a misnomer. Models only help us understand climate in a more reasonable way, they will never be perfect but they do reasonably show us what is happening in the climate of earth.. The actual observations are clear enough at this point that modeling is not required to understand that the earth is warming. We see the ice melting, the sea level rising and other affects such as seasonal shift, prolonged forest fire seasons, regional drought trends also support the observational confirmations.
Simply put:
We know the amount of GHG’s mankind has produced quantitatively.
We know that should produce a relatively certain amount of forcing.
We see that things are heating up.
In other words, the anthropogenic signal is strong enough that we are certain this global warming is:
Occurring
Attributable to the forcings caused by human output of greenhouse gases.
Some are still “under the mistaken impression that concern about global warming is based on climate models, which in reality play little role in our understanding—our understanding is based mainly on how the Earth responded to changes of boundary conditions in the past and on how it is responding to on-going changes.”
- Dr. James Hansen
Climate System Models
General Circulation Models (GCM’s)
GCM’s are used to understand the forcing systems that influence climate here on earth.
By feeding data into the model simulations, scientists are able to test potentials and evaluate the various influences of the earth climate system.
Just because they are simulations does not mean that they are not useful or accurate. In fact modeling climate is the only way to estimate climate functions with any degree of accuracy.
Modern climate models are more accurate than the instruments in some cases. The models actually help identify measurement problems in the real world. And that ‘is very’ important, because measuring the global climate is a lot of measuring. The models are so good, they can actually help identify instrumental aberrations that can then be examined and fixed.
What has been learned?
Using the above processes, mistakes and aberrations from measurements are corrected for with models which are tested against the measurements and then refined.
Ocean Cooling
Satellite Measurements
Tropospheric/Stratospheric Measurements
Can climate modeling improve?
Absolutely. Continued investigation and testing of the measurements and the models will help refine the models and the measurements as well. Science is about discovery through testing. The scientific method is very careful and methodical. It is the best and only way to understand our climate.
Is climate modeling science?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=100
If we did not have climate models…
...it may have taken much longer to realize there was a problem in our atmospheric composition that may be dramatically affecting climate. The models allowed us to see that the temperature was rising when it should have been falling.
The models used are called Global Circulation Models (GCM’s). The major forces are fairly well known. So when the global temperature started doing something other than the model, the lead hypothesis was either something is wrong with the model, or something changed in the climate system.
Upon further examination…
...it was found that indeed, human GHG output and aerosols were changing the way our climate system operated. Some effects had a cooling impact, and some had a warming impact. Both combined however still lead to further warming.
How good are the models now?
Source: Barton Paul Levenson
“Let’s review the successful predictions of the models.”
That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
Cont
” A spell of extreme cold weather has brought ice and snow to much of Argentina, killing at least nine.
Argentina has stepped up electricity imports from Brazil and put restrictions on the use of natural gas by industry to ensure the increased energy demand for domestic heating can be met.
The cold snap also hit Bolivia, where local media reported at least two deaths in the tropical region of Santa Cruz.
Bolivia’s education ministry ordered schools to close until 21 July because of the cold.
Low temperatures have also affected Chile, southern Brazil, and eastern Peru.
The unusually cold winter weather in South America follows one of the coldest winters for years in many parts of the northern hemisphere…”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10679088
.
UNITED NATIONS — The process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce its periodic assessment reports has been successful overall, but IPCC needs to fundamentally reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how best to respond to climate change, says a new report from the InterAcademy Council (IAC), an Amsterdam-based organization of the world’s science academies.
“Operating under the public microscope the way IPCC does requires strong leadership, the continued and enthusiastic participation of distinguished scientists, an ability to adapt, and a commitment to openness if the value of these assessments to society is to be maintained,” said Harold T. Shapiro, president emeritus and professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University in the United States and chair of the committee that wrote the report. Roseanne Diab, executive officer of the Academy of Science of South Africa and professor emeritus of environmental sciences and honorary senior research associate at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, served as vice chair of the committee, which included experts from several countries and a variety of disciplines.
The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to inform policy decisions through periodic assessments of what is known about the physical scientific aspects of climate change, its global and regional impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. Representatives of 194 participating governments make up the Panel, which sets the scope of the assessments, elects the Bureau that oversees them, and approves the Summaries for Policymakers that accompany the massive assessment reports themselves, which are prepared by thousands of scientists who volunteer for three Working Groups.
These assessment reports have gained IPCC much respect including a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. However, amid an increasingly intense public debate about the science of climate change and costs of curbing it, IPCC has come under closer scrutiny, and controversies have erupted over its perceived impartiality toward climate policy and the accuracy of its reports. This prompted U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC chair Rajendra K. Pachauri to issue a letter on March 10 this year requesting that the IAC review IPCC and recommend ways to strengthen the processes and procedures by which future assessments are prepared.
The IAC report makes several recommendations to fortify IPCC’s management structure, including establishing an executive committee to act on the Panel’s behalf and ensure that an ongoing decision-making capability is maintained. To enhance its credibility and independence, the executive committee should include individuals from outside the IPCC or even outside the climate science community. IPCC also should appoint an executive director — with the status of a senior scientist equal to that of the Working Group co-chairs — to lead the Secretariat, handle day-to-day operations, and speak on behalf of the organization. The current position of the IPCC secretary does not carry a level of autonomy or responsibility equivalent to that of executive directors at other organizations, the IAC committee found.
The part-time nature and fixed term of the IPCC chair’s position has many advantages, the committee said, but the current limit of two six-year terms is too long. The IPCC chair and the proposed executive director, as well as the Working Group co-chairs, should be limited to the term of one assessment in order to maintain a variety of perspectives and fresh approach to each assessment. Formal qualifications for the chair and all other Bureau members need to be developed, as should a rigorous conflict-of-interest policy to be applied to senior IPCC leadership and all authors, review editors, and staff responsible for report content, the committee added.
Given that the IAC report was prompted in part by the revelation of errors in the last assessment, the committee examined IPCC’s review process as well. It concluded that the process is thorough, but stronger enforcement of existing IPCC review procedures could minimize the number of errors. To that end, IPCC should encourage review editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that all review comments are adequately considered. Review editors should also ensure that genuine controversies are reflected in the report and be satisfied that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views. Lead authors should explicitly document that the full range of thoughtful scientific views has been considered.
The use of so-called gray literature from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources has been controversial, although often such sources of information and data are relevant and appropriate for inclusion in the assessment reports. Problems occur because authors do not follow IPCC’s guidelines for evaluating such sources and because the guidelines themselves are too vague, the committee said. It recommended that these guidelines be made more specific — including adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable — and strictly enforced to ensure that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged.
]]>Wind power, like throwing money at the sky….....
Britain’s biggest wind farm companies are to be paid not to produce electricity when the wind is blowing.
Energy firms will receive thousands of pounds a day per wind farm to turn off their turbines because the National Grid cannot use the power they are producing
... the ‘intermittent’ nature of wind makes such farms unreliable providers of electricity
The electricity cannot be stored
“As more and more wind farms come on stream this will become more and more of an issue. Wind power is not controllable and does not provide a solid supply to keep the national grid manageable. Paying multinational companies large sums of money not to supply electricity seems wrong.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/20/firms-paid-to-shut-down-wind-farms-when-the-wind-is-blowing/
—————————————————-
Alternative energy can’t just be a dream, it has to be practical, economically sound, able to provide a constant source of power, and safe. The current windmill technology doesn’t get us there. AW