tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14436906778017301722024-03-13T11:25:01.291+10:00Climate Change DebateIs climate change real? ..... Is it a problem? ..... Should we do something?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-20239258561975981362009-01-10T17:31:00.001+10:002009-01-10T17:33:34.128+10:00Climate Change Debate Has Moved!Hello all<br /><br />I have set up a new blog at Read n Say <a href="http://readnsay.wordpress.com/">http://readnsay.wordpress.com</a><br /><br />Hopefully this new site will be easier to post comments on.<br /><br />See you there!<br /><br />Michelle<div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-63312034704044555672009-01-07T19:59:00.003+10:002009-01-07T20:10:31.452+10:00Are 10,000 Siberian weather readings missing since 1990?"Elmer Beauregard" of website <a href="http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/">M4<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">GW</span></a> has an interesting twist on the temperature reading reliability debate at - <a href="http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/2008/12/oops_we_forgot_siberia.html"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Ooops</span> - We forgot Siberia</a><br /><br />He claims that temperature readings since 1990 are skewed because the split up of the Soviet Union reduced the number of reporting stations from 15,000 to 5,000. Now this is a very interesting concept. I wonder if it is true?<br /><br />Can weather station experts answer this question please?<div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-3507617874997852402009-01-07T19:43:00.003+10:002009-01-07T19:50:41.664+10:00Stop Global Warming - Tell your kids to SHUT THE FRIDGE!Sitting at my computer reading about climate change/ global warming myths (what else?) I turned around to see my son with both the fridge and freezer doors open staring inside in a trance.<br /><br />Why is it that kids do that?<br /><br />My first thought was of all the extra heat being pumped into the house (and when it is 28oC and 97% humidity, one doesn't need any more) from the fridge motor.<br /><br />Then it occurred to me....<br /><br />How many kids around the world do the same thing? Tell your kids to stop staring into open fridges or the world will end.<br /><br /><br />GRRRRRRRRRR!<div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-5652532795021734392009-01-06T19:29:00.007+10:002009-01-06T21:52:40.607+10:00Obama told Australia's coal is killing the worldNow this is a story no global warming sceptic could leave alone. Professor James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has dumped on Australia's coal industry - big time!<br /><br /><br />Refer Courier Mail's on line news article "<a href="http://couriermail.news.com.au/story/0,20797,24880071-952,00.html">Australia destroying life on earth</a>" earlier today.<br /><br /><br />James Hansen's name pops up quite frequently in relation to global warming alarmist news. Professor Hansen has written an <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf">open letter to Michelle and Barack Obama</a>, published on the internet because it wouldn't be able to be hand delivered to him before his inauguration.<br /><p>Being a sceptic, I looked up the letter myself, and yes, he did say the following .....</p><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large as to<br />guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet<br /></blockquote><blockquote><p>Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground.</p></blockquote><p>What really gets my goat is that he claims that no-one expects oil and gas to stay in the ground, but that coal should. </p><p>He includes some other gems which were not reported in the newspaper article .....</p><blockquote><p>Analysis of Earth’s history helps reveal the level of greenhouse gases needed to maintain a climate resembling the Holocene, Creation, the period of reasonably stable climate in which civilization developed. That carbon dioxide level, unsurprisingly in retrospect, is less than the current 385 ppm (parts per million). The safe amount for the long-term is no more than 350 ppm, probably less. Pre-industrial carbon dioxide amount was 280 ppm.</p></blockquote><p>The Holocene Climate Optimum refers to the period of time between about 8,000 to 5,000 years ago. My reading tells me that CO2 levels then were 260 to 270 ppmv and the Earth's temperature was up to 3 degrees C warmer than modern times. During that period, CO2 levels actually dipped a little, while temperatures rose. Since then, temperatures have lowered a little, with increases and decreases, while CO2 levels have gradually increased. </p><p>Going back over 5,000 years is well and truly before any man made CO2 influence. Going back further into prehistory, some scientists report the atmospheric CO2 levels were well over 1000 ppmv during some of the periods of greatest biodiversity. Presumably Professor Hansen doesn't look back that far as he referred to the Holocene period as "Creation". I have heard Christian ministers of religion refer to the Earth as 40,000 years old, not 8,000.</p><p>Since the Holocene Climate Optimum the Earth has experienced periods of unstable climate with successive moderate changes from warming to cooling and back again. There is some evidence that these climate changes were the undoing of the supremecy of some civilisations within recorded history. </p><p>Hmmm - the USA produces a fair bit of oil and gas, but little or no coal. Australia produces a heap of coal and lesser amounts of oil and gas. Why all of a sudden is oil and gas production and consumption OK, but coal is a no-no? </p><br />Has Professor Hansen become very patriotic, protective of US oil, gas and automotive industries? Has Professor Hansen discovered that somehow coal originating CO2 is worse for the world than oil and gas CO2? Or is Professor Hansen receiving sponsorship from the rich and powerful US oil and gas lobby?<br /><br /><br />Regardless of the reason for this twaddle from Professor Hansen, it just adds further "fuel" to the global warming sceptics' concerns that the CO2 caused global warming alarmists stories are not realistic and that global warming alarmism lacks credibility.<br /><br /><br />The full letter can be found at <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf</a><div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-10191145998490828082009-01-06T18:36:00.003+10:002009-01-06T19:27:00.547+10:00Climate Change Perspective by Viv ForbesIf you haven't made up your mind about the global warming due to CO2 argument, Viv Forbes has written a condensed summary of the arguments as to why climate change is natural, has always been happening, and how Man can do little or nothing about it. It makes extra interesting reading for anyone with an interest in history because he links climate change timing throughout recorded history with the rise and fall of significant civilisations.<br /><br />You can find his paper at <a title="blocked::http://carbon-sense.com/2009/01/02/climate-change-in-perspective/" href="http://carbon-sense.com/2009/01/02/climate-change-in-perspective/">http://carbon-sense.com/2009/01/02/climate-change-in-perspective/</a><br /><br />It is only 14 pages and makes good sense.<div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-88490045181837654092009-01-05T10:33:00.003+10:002009-01-05T10:44:02.860+10:00Lessons From History on Climate ChangePublished with the permission of Viv Forbes:<br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">“Lessons from History on Climate Change”. </span></strong></div><br /><div align="center">A statement by Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.</div><div align="center">3 January 2009</div><div align="center">For Immediate Release. </div><br />The Carbon Sense Coalition today congratulated Senator Barnaby Joyce, Senator Ron Boswell, Senator Cory Bernardi and Dr Dennis Jensen MP for their principled stand against the Emissions Trading Scheme.<br /><br />Releasing a new paper entitled “Climate Change in Perspective” the Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, said that changing climate was a permanent feature of Earth’s history – man did not cause it and cannot change it.<br /><br />“All over the world, politicians, scientists, taxpayers and shareholders are waking up to the fact that they have been conned by the global warming story. All we need to do is read a bit of climate history to get things into perspective and realize how lucky we are today.”<br /><br />He commented: “Within just the last 20,000 years, vast ice sheets melted from the earth’s surface, seas rose about 130 m, temperatures rose well above present levels several times, and as the seas warmed, they expelled their dissolved carbon dioxide.”<br /><br />“Then just 300 years ago, earth suffered from the bitter cold and famines caused by the Little Ice Age. Since about 1700 AD, warmth created by increasing solar activity has been driving back the deadly frosts, snow and ice. Carbon dioxide is naturally expelled from the warming oceans to the atmosphere – humans have very little to do with it all.”<br /><br /> “All of these events were caused by and controlled by natural processes, and all life on earth was forced to adapt or die.”<br /><br />“Despite continual increases in man’s emissions of carbon dioxide, the earth has not warmed since 1998. With unseasonal snow, bitter frosts, power failures and lost crops being reported every week, to send 10,000 pampered politicians and bureaucrats on a junket to Poland to discuss “Global warming” is surely a sick joke?<br /><br />“A growing number of politicians are now bravely stating what a large and increasing number of scientists have been saying: “There is no global warming crisis, carbon dioxide is a benefit not a danger in the atmosphere, and the whole Emissions Trading industry is shaping up to be a bigger financial disaster than the sub-prime mess.”<br /><br />To read the full report from The Carbon Sense Coalition on “Climate Change in Perspective” see: <br /><a href="http://carbon-sense.com/2009/01/02/climate-change-in-perspective/"><span style="font-size:85%;">http://carbon-sense.com/2009/01/02/climate-change-in-perspective/</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><br /><br />For a link to the additional 650 scientists who signed their dissent over Man-Made Global Warming claims and continue to debunk the so-called “Consensus” in 2008 see:<br /><a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=53242194&CFTOKEN=70206467"><span style="font-size:85%;">http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=53242194&CFTOKEN=70206467</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><br /><br />To read comments by Senator Joyce see:<br /><a href="http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/12/17/barnaby-joyce-the-innate-problems-with-labors-emissions-trading-scheme/"><span style="font-size:85%;color:#3333ff;">http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/12/17/barnaby-joyce-the-innate-problems-with-labors-emissions-trading-scheme/</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;color:#3333ff;"> </span><br /><br />Viv Forbes<br />Chairman<br />The Carbon Sense Coalition<br />MS 23 Rosewood Qld 4340<br />0754 640 533<br /><br /><a href="mailto:info@carbon-sense.com"><span style="font-size:85%;color:#3333ff;">info@carbon-sense.com</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;color:#3333ff;"> </span><a href="http://www.carbon-sense.com/"><span style="font-size:85%;color:#3333ff;">www.carbon-sense.com</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;color:#3333ff;">. </span><div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-31043410364249712152009-01-04T13:19:00.005+10:002009-01-05T10:44:22.043+10:00Senator Barnaby Joyce on Climate Change and ETS<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwEXHhQVrXJTX6kDkKMz_95KX-EdeSMehdv_q-i0zxJDij4TZ1WPOX0C5WpPgcPc8V_QbkMRjYhrar552YWE08dink83UOI_lv1CupfKbR2o_xEN1XmZvGbQw4MAobJ0lsx6dTniwi8qit/s1600-h/e5d%5B1%5D.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5287275921319599570" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 100px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 131px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwEXHhQVrXJTX6kDkKMz_95KX-EdeSMehdv_q-i0zxJDij4TZ1WPOX0C5WpPgcPc8V_QbkMRjYhrar552YWE08dink83UOI_lv1CupfKbR2o_xEN1XmZvGbQw4MAobJ0lsx6dTniwi8qit/s200/e5d%5B1%5D.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>The following is <a href="http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/12/17/barnaby-joyce-the-innate-problems-with-labors-emissions-trading-scheme/">an address to the readers of Agmates website </a>from the Leader of the Nationals in the Australian Senate, Barnaby Joyce -</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /><blockquote>Leader of the Nationals in the Senate Barnaby Joyce writes to the Agmates community -<br />*****<br />I’m going to be serious and quite frank with you here as the issues I am about to raise will be contentious not only amongst coalition MP’s but also my own party.<br />Every age comes up with a witch to burn, a sect that apparently if it is not succumbed will bring about the destruction of an empire, an issue that occupies the rigours of the day.<br />It is almost as if those in the position of power and their surrounding Illuminati with time to spare are terrified of the banality of daily existence and so search for an issue that demands blind obedience to conquer it.<br />The most dangerous place to be in these times of immense fervour is in the counter position that calls in to question the logic of the euphoria. Those who dare to question are held as heretics. There is a communal life fest in being part of the pack or staying silent.<br />It is hard for them to separate from the reality that the world is fairly constant and predictable and that things of the greater nature of the universe have remained beyond our control in the past and generally shall remain so into the future.<br />It was interesting to hear the recent discussion between Freeman Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, with Robyn Williams, on The Science Show on ABC Radio National, when he rightly stated that the world has many problems but global warming is not one of the biggest ones. As Dyson said:<br />“Sea level rise has been going on much longer, long before global warming, and it probably has very little to do with human activities. All we know for sure is that sea level has been rising steadily for about 10,000 years and we’ll have to do something about that.”<br />I don’t pretend for one moment to be a scientist but in my role in the Senate it is implicit in my job to be a sceptic , to question and to consider all sides and be open to the views of many rather than one view.<br />My current concern with the emissions trading scheme is that a religious fervour has built up around the altar of global warming. Those who serve at the altar have become ruthless in their denigration of alternate views. This fervour has now received its imprimatur by reason of a new tax, or should it be tithe to be paid to the Rudd Labor Government.<br />The similarity in this newest forte of socialism can be defined by the ultimate purpose of divesting the individual of their asset or income stream on the premise of an apparent greater moral good.<br />But who becomes the benefactors of this divestment? The administrators and the traders. Their pockets are lined with the property and income of others.<br />I don’t remember anybody paying rural Australia for the vegetation that was divested from their asset, rural land, during the tree-clearing legislation so we could meet our Kyoto target and unfortunately I don’t hear any chorus of questioning as to why in the future rural producers, after trying to feed the nation and others, will have to be dragged into an emissions trading scheme that could make many of them unviable.<br />Where is all this heading?<br />The National Party has been at the forefront of saying this is all getting beyond ridiculous and becoming dangerous. They are also being supported by unlikely allies such as the Australian Workers Union who see their own members, who have been part of the process of delivering wealth to our nation from their labours have had their industries now termed ‘dirty’ by the new environmental high priests. In this new Orwellian frenzy everyone is looking over their shoulder.<br />Australia is going down a path of an ETS without the co-operation of the major emitting countries. It says that it is morally right to do so. The Rudd Labor Government and others say that unilateral action is a moral imperative. I look forward to that same fervour of moralistic rectitude as they approach the Mugabe issue in Zimbabwe. He is certainly in the wrong and it is on this new platform of morals that we await our dear leader to launch an attack in a very worthwhile and immediate practice of ridding our planet of this tyrant, Mugabe. That is something that would be of an exceptional benefit.<br />The government is currently honey-coating the fact that it will be collecting a vast amount of money from the Australian people. The ETS will collect $11.5 billion in its first year, $12 billion in its second, it will force up the price of goods and services, it will encourage industries to move to where an ETS is not present.<br />Australia generates 1.5 per cent of global greenhouse emissions and this ETS will reduce world levels by the smallest sliver, which self-evidently will have nil effect on global climate whether you believe in climate warming or not.<br />People will lose their job or their business because of the ETS. They will be the modern-day witches burning on the environmentalist fanatical pyre because their role in this new dynamic was unacceptable.<br />For regional Australia we look forward to the ridiculous prospect of 34 million possible hectares of forest to take the place of farming land, formerly the backbone of so many regional towns and generations of good, honest working Australians’ lives.<br />The history of human civilisations has the disturbing trait of devising ways to put themselves out of business, sometimes through no more than their own excesses and belief structures of their governing bureaucracies. The only protection against these excesses is the capacity of the general population to question, to doubt and to disagree.<br />I have no doubt that as a world we must become efficient with the utilisation of our resources. We must give the greatest number of people the greatest access to the highest standard of living, it is only fair.<br />Efficiency, more than emissions, must become the trading scheme that brings a cleaner, fairer future. Encourage efficiency and keep the government’s hands out of people’s pockets and off their assets and that will bring a greater propensity to a long-term broad-based better world for all of us.<br />END</blockquote></div><div></div><br /><div>Well said Senator.</div><div></div><br /><div>Please pass on this news, and your support of the Senator's comments, particularly to your Member of Parliament.</div><br /><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-78809916126247295492009-01-03T16:23:00.004+10:002009-01-03T16:40:56.794+10:00A good read - Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 YearsA friend lent me a book over the Christmas/ New Year break which I found to be fascinating reading."Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years" was written by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery in 2007 with an updated edition published in 2008.<br /><p align="center"><a href="http://www.fishpond.com.au/product_info.php?ref=881&products_id=11957476&affiliate_banner_id=1" target="_blank"><img alt="Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" src="http://www.fishpond.com.au/affiliate_show_banner.php?ref=881&affiliate_pbanner_id=11957476" border="0" /></a></p><br />There is so much material in this book. If you have doubts about whether global warming or climate change are man-made, you will find this book a real eye opener. Although this book is written by scientists, it is written with a minimum of jargon so that any reasonably educated adult can understand. The authors are undoubtedly deniers of the man made climate change argument. The theme of this book is that there is a solar/ celestial cycle which recurs roughly every 1,500 years and that these influences are much stronger than anything man has done to this planet.<br /><br /><br /><p align="center"><a href="http://www.fishpond.com.au/product_info.php?ref=881&products_id=11957476&affiliate_banner_id=1" target="_blank"></a></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-1247721653663676192009-01-02T20:18:00.005+10:002009-01-02T20:45:17.279+10:00Dr Tim Flannery, Australian of the Year, Quoted ......I was told about an Australian news item that I just couldn't believe was real. I looked it up, and sure enough, it was real all right!<br /><br />Dr Tim Flannery is a scientist - and 2007 Australian of the Year!<br /><br />He is quoted by AAP, and therefore news all around the world, as having stated in a public address at Australia's Parliament House that drastic measures are needed to curb global warming, including adding sulphur to plane fuel so that sulphur could be dispersed into the atmosphere and create cloud cover, and setting up an eBay style carbon trading scheme.<br /><br />I know, I didn't believe it either. Check out the 19 May 2008 story "<a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html">Tim Flannery's Radical Climate Change "Solution"</a>" at news.com.au.<br /><br />And he admits to having no idea what adding sulphur to the atmosphere would do to the planet!<br /><br />Is this scientific statement as responsible as others that have been published?<div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-19797009694923993602009-01-02T13:04:00.006+10:002009-01-02T20:43:08.917+10:00Slowing of Coral Growth in Great Barrier ReefToday's newspaper articles on a paper published in Science state that the scientists attribute the declining rate of growth of a particular type of coral to climate change and increasing acidity in the ocean due to greater absorption of CO2.<br /><br />The abstract of the article <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5910/116">Declining Coral Calcification on the Great Barrier Reef </a>states:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>The causes of the decline remain unknown; however, this study suggests that increasing temperature stress and a declining saturation state of seawater aragonite may be diminishing the ability of GBR corals to deposit calcium carbonate. </blockquote><br /><br />The scientists Glenn De'ath, Janice M. Lough, Katharina E. Fabricius of the Australian Institute of Marine Science report that their data suggests that the decrease in calcification of 14.2% since 1990 is unprecedented in the past 400 years.<br /><br />Aragonite is CaCO3 - a form of calcium carbonate. It makes sense that this is important to coral growth. But what might be reducing the saturation of aragonite in seawater around the Great Barrier Reef? On further research I found that CO2 reacts with H2O and CaCO3 to make Ca and H2CO3 - carbonic acid! Aha - so that is why the oceans are becoming more acidic.<br /><br /><br /><br />So what happened to corals much more than 400 years ago? The Earth was at least as warm, some say warmer, in the Medieval times. Coral was around then, so how did it cope? Maybe the answer is in slower growth, not killing. The coral is growing more slowly, but will recover again when the temperatures reduce with the next Little Ice Age. What is happening with coral in other locations around the world?<br /><br />What will happen/ has happened to coral when the planet cools?<br /><br />Coral seems to be pretty resilient. It has survived Crown of Thorns plagues, bleaching episodes and massive quantities of superphosphate washing out of Queensland rivers. I would like to see more studies of what has happened to corals over time with other unfavourable events.<br /><br />As for the scientists claim that this is due to global warming from man-made CO2 (as at least one stated on camera), I didn't see any reference to their proof that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere due to man made causes, nor that this is causing global warming.<br /><br />All that can be concluded is (possibly) that the rate of growth of one type of coral in the Great Barrier Reef has been slower recently than it has in the past.<br /><br />Am I correct in understanding that the coral is STILL GROWING, just 14.2% more slowly?<div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-78361505247329059822009-01-02T09:56:00.003+10:002009-01-02T10:46:30.915+10:00Global Warming Not Measured Since 1995The <a href="http://www.factsandarts.com/">Facts and Arts website </a>has posted <a href="http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-since-1995/">No significant Global Warming since 1995 </a>by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Jahl</span> R. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Ahlbeck</span>, an academic in Finland.<br /><br />This article includes graphs of two different methods for measuring the Earth's temperature - one in the lower atmosphere and the other at ground level. Although these show different absolute temperatures and different trends over time, since 1995 they both show a similar trend - little or no temperature increase. The author states he selected 1995 as there have been no major volcanic eruptions since then which would skew the temperature with a cooling effect.<br /><br />So why, if CO2 increases cause temperature increases, and atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase over this time, haven't temperatures continued to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">noticeably</span> increase?<br /><br />The answer - man made CO2 is NOT influencing the Earth's temperature!<div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-50358667392660985492008-12-23T07:23:00.006+10:002008-12-23T07:51:49.563+10:00US to announce War Against Global Warming?Reuters has just posted <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BL4HQ20081222?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10341">news</a> that US President elect Obama has filled his new administration with AGW proponents.<br /><br /><blockquote><p>President-elect <a title="More on Barack Obama's campaign for the 2008 Election" href="http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/barackobama">Barack Obama</a>'s new "green dream team" is committed to battling climate change and ready to push for big policy reforms, in stark contrast with the Bush administration, environmental advocates said on Monday.</p><p><br />"If this team can't advance strong national policy on global warming, then no one can," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, referring to Obama's picks for the top energy and environment jobs in his administration, which takes office on January 20.</p></blockquote><br /><br />Just great! From the country that brought us the war in IRAQ, the global financial collapse, ENRON and other startling failures, they are now going to inflict on us the perpetuation of the man made CO2 is bad for us myth.<br /><br /><blockquote>... Karpinski said that with Obama's "great new green dream team" and more members in the U.S. Congress who support action to curb climate change, a law to limit greenhouse gas emissions is more likely, as is a global agreement to succeed the current phase of the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol.</blockquote><br />Or is this just wishful thinking by the AGW proponents?<br /><br />At least they didn't mention an emissions trading scheme, or is that what they mean by a "law to limit greenhouse gas emissions"?<br /><br />Policy to protect the environment is good, but only if it is directed at the real causes and takes action that is going to make a real difference.<div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-62024826889041481682008-12-18T20:28:00.007+10:002008-12-19T06:10:30.761+10:00Rising sea levels have hot spots!If global warming causes rises in sea levels, why aren't rising sea levels "global"? <div></div><div><br /></div><div>Why, if global sea levels have been falling since 2005, are some areas experiencing sea level surges which are causing very real problems to very real people? </div><div></div><div><br /></div><div>Refer today's Solomon Star news item <a href="http://solomonstarnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5475&change=71&changeown=78&Itemid=26">Giant Waves Hit Atolls</a>. A fellow I work with is from one of the villages named and is concerned about his community and what he will find when he arrives for a Christmas visit this Sunday. I repeat - very real people. And matters are even more dire in PNG islands as per <a href="http://solomonstarnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5466&change=71&changeown=78&Itemid=26">Tidal waves displace 75,000 people</a>.</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div>The <a href="http://sealevel.colorado.edu/maps.php">University of Colorado </a>has some very interesting illustrations of sea level rises. </div><div><br /><br /></div><div></div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5281085611423750066" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 288px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 172px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3NMzC8TaXXJsuC74NaZeAEkcyKcnM6PsijsdDLQvUipQvwgp-QXXRUhhLRYKsbC-a5KSY-XVnX_JMvBUTT2rTgktFH_DNRfYKUzkfdhYo6GWu0o39cPKvUKeGBnoP6qYHOVdQMb7ECFUq/s200/Uni+Colorado+sl_noib.jpg" border="0" /> <div></div><div></div><div></div><div>The most interesting thing to me is that the sea level rises are not uniform around the globe. Another point I found interesting is that the sea level hot spots do not align with the IPCC's surface temperature hot spots which clearly move from hotter in the Arctic region to cooling in areas close to the Antarctic.</div><div></div><br /><div>I have been living in the middle of one of these sea level rise hot spots for three "wet seasons" and this year's December full moon tidal surge is higher than the previous two. I know this is very short term observational data, but it doesn't align with the published global trends. Why? (I think I have picked up the habit of this question in recent times from my young son.)</div><div></div><br /><div>Maybe "global warming" and sea level rises are not causal. I don't need to run the sea level data and temperature rise data through a regression analysis to tell there simply is little or no geographic correlation from these graphical representations of the data.</div><div></div><br /><div>There is, however, a geographic correlation between the sea level rise hot spots and areas of seismic activity. The US Geological Survey (USGS) site has maps which are updated with the locations of seismic activity in the past 30 days. This only records "significant" events. The huge bang that momentarily shook my house last night isn't among the ones shown of this map.</div><div></div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5281091181062045234" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 308px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 207px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibXCFOgNXZlaIYDiaqA5uvlQtw3sy-ZTExszQbYiltf1UYaiMT19XvDWSc9lw2OkxicUo2ohPTkjEhPzOid8SnTiHhumWvJan6lCYAH3FBmI_pWXEoTFzEx36EjGF-zHFAH1_qMH2zDpaL/s200/USGS+earthquake+activity+Nov+08+8-30+days.gif" border="0" /><br /><div></div>Are these areas of sea level rise hot spots due to under sea seismic activity, or heat coming from the earth's core where there are movements along the fault lines?<br /><br />Jennifer Marohasy stated in her blog <a href="http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/dip-in-global-sea-level-won%e2%80%99t-save-tuvalu/">Dip in Global Sea Level Won't Save Tuvalu</a>:<br /><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>Of course even a drop in the global sea level may not save Tuvalu because the great majority of oceanic islands, including Tuvalu, were formed by volcanic activity. While the volcanoes are active, the islands rise relative to the global averaged sea-level. When volcanic activity stops, the islands will cool and eventually start to sink. So there are islands rising and sinking all the time – and <a href="http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2006/09/crikey-the-islands-are-still-there-an-inconvenient-truth-part-3/"><strong><span style="color:#000000;">Tuvalu should be sinking</span></strong></a>.<br /></blockquote>The end point? Why not just get over this CO2 thing as the sole cause of environmental catastrophe, and concentrate on working out what the REAL cause of each problem is. The people of Tuvalu, Ontong Java, Papua New Guinea's islands and many others need help NOW. If sea inundation is a geological fact of life, let's deal with helping the affected people relocate. That in itself will be a major task for the world governments just negotiating somewhere for them to relocate to.<div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-31140974232399454962008-12-17T19:59:00.005+10:002008-12-17T21:02:33.863+10:00What is a computer model anyway?Ever made an Excel spreadsheet, or know someone who has? Most people reading this would have. Lotus 123 (an earlier spreadsheet software program) became popular in the Eighties because it gave people with a little bit of computer expertise a simple way to do modelling.<br /><ul><li>Work out the household budget and see what effects a change in rent/ pay/ school fees has. </li><br /><li>Work out the the effect on the household budget if interest rates are x% compared to y%.</li><br /><li>Work out the Sales Department's net profit if sales of widget A are 100 units compared to 500 compared to 1000, including the different marketing costs to achieve each level of sales.</li></ul>These are all examples of very simple computer models. What ALL computer models have in common is that some factors stay the same and some factors can be changed to see "what if".<br /><br />Presumably the global warming/ climate change computer models are much more complex. Regardless of the complexity, the value of some factors are built in and fixed, and some are changed to see "what if".<br /><br />The computer model, simple or ultra complex, is only as good as the value of the factors that are used and the accuracy of the formula for predicting the effect of the changed value.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkVwSXATHH0t6nQmFwvP2L1ZayFYTZIoOOTxxcvqxZCl60jKiBL1R5atcWXIhVP1k07lH56gVz2JODle0_4XP-2XnyYV0kGerDfIqEz7ZOOfCjDDADl-A2WRDHN3r3Li3uyMNBMRKtrpr-/s1600-h/GIGO.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5280711926016998674" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 130px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkVwSXATHH0t6nQmFwvP2L1ZayFYTZIoOOTxxcvqxZCl60jKiBL1R5atcWXIhVP1k07lH56gVz2JODle0_4XP-2XnyYV0kGerDfIqEz7ZOOfCjDDADl-A2WRDHN3r3Li3uyMNBMRKtrpr-/s200/GIGO.JPG" border="0" /></a>Therefore computer models for climate change effects are only as good as the numbers and the equations that are put into the model. They are not magic or superior to human judgement. They are only as good as the research and open mindedness of the person who creates the model. And computer models only show "what if". The result depends on the "if" factor.<br /><br />There is a very technical computer term which applies here - GIGO. This stands for Garbage In, Garbage Out.<div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-61746921242356642392008-12-17T19:10:00.005+10:002008-12-17T19:51:36.847+10:00David Bellamy's price of dissent on global warmingThe Australian newspaper has published David Bellamy's "<a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24700827-5013479,00.html">The price of dissent on global warming</a>".<br /><br />PLEASE read this article! This is one person's description of what happened when he dared to voice his opinion about the global warming retoric. This man is well known for his concern for the environment and the living creatures on this planet.<br /><br />If this very public fugure has been shunned by the AGW supporters to the extent that his opinion is now blocked from the rest of the world, how many other respected people are in a similar position, but we don't know about them because they have not had the same public profile in the past?<br /><br />I thought that science was about critical examination of all the evidence, not supporting politically acceptable views at the time?<br /><br />How will democracy survive if people's views and opinions are hushed up? The increasingly popular line that the global warming science is too technical for ordinary people, so we should all just listen and believe what we are told is chilling. (Pardon the unintended pun.) Dictatorships and other people control doctrines are based on this line of argument.<br /><br /><div align="center"><strong>Politicians take note</strong></div><div align="center"><strong>I think and I vote.</strong></div><br />And so do millions of others! Let us hear all of the arguments so we can make up our own minds.<div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-77115853528273425082008-12-16T17:40:00.004+10:002008-12-16T20:12:47.800+10:00First ETS spin "gotcha"I haven't even finished reading the first news item I opened (<a href="http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24807125-953,00.html">Kids take the heat out of climate costs</a>) on the Australian Government's new <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">emissions</span> reduction target of 5% (from 2000 levels) and the first whopper bites me on the nose -<br /><br /><blockquote>Some 60 per cent of middle income earners - 2.4 million households - would be compensated for all price rises. The extra money would come through a 2.5 per cent rise in welfare payments, including Family Tax benefits A and B, from July 2010.<br />This would include a 1.1 per cent indexation due in September but to be brought forward, and 1.4 per cent to cover cost increases.</blockquote><br />In other words, over 40% of what the government claims they will be paying families to compensate for the costs of the scheme they would have been paying any way! This is called spin in polite political circles.<br /><br />What would the figures look like if they showed only the actual true increase in welfare assistance as 1.4%?<br /><br />The figures in the couriermail.com.au article compared to the true 1.4% extra payments:<br /><br />(My comments and calculations at 1.4% are in red beside each quote.)<br /><br />"How the emissions trading scheme will impact you, assuming you do not alter your energy consumption:<br /><p>Single-person household - no children </p><ul><li>On $30,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $324, government assistance is $390 - therefore $66 a year better off <span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>- really $106 worse off</strong></span></li><li>On $70,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $574, assistance from government is $290 - therefore $284 a year worse off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $412 worse off</span></strong></li><li>On $120,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $877, government assistance is nil - therefore $877 a year worse off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- still $877 worse off</span></strong></li></ul>Sole parent with one dependent child under five-years-old<br /><ul><li>On $30,000 a year: Average cost if living impact is $487, government assistance is $963 - therefore $476 a year better off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $52 better off</span></strong></li><li>On $70,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $622, government assistance is $904 - therefore $282 a year better off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $116 worse off</span></strong></li><li>On $120,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $900, government assistance is $99 - therefore $801 a year worse off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $845 worse off</span></strong></li></ul><p>Single income couple with two dependent children, one aged 6-12 and one aged 13-15 </p><ul><li>On $30,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $553, government assistance is $1189 - therefore $636 a year better off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $113 better off</span></strong></li><li>On $70,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $701, government assistance is $1044 - therefore $343 a year better off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $116 worse off</span></strong></li><li>On $120,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $925, government assistance is $897 - therefore $28 a year worse off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $423 worse off</span></strong></li></ul><p>Dual income couple (50:50 income split) - no children </p><ul><li>On $30,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $436, government assistance is $1249 - therefore $813 a year better off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $263 better off</span></strong></li><li>On $70,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $658, government assistance is $780 - therefore $122 a year better off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $221 worse off</span></strong></li><li>On $120,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $960, government assistance is $780 - therefore $180 worse off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $523 worse off</span></strong></li></ul><p>Dual income couple (50:50 income split) with two dependent children, one aged under five and one aged 6-12 </p><ul><li>On $30,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $554, government assistance is $1540 - therefore $986 a year better off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $308 better off</span></strong></li><li>On $70,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $741, government assistance is $1028 - therefore $287 a year better off <span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>- really $165 worse off</strong></span></li><li>On $120,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $985, government assistance is $984 - therefore $1 a year worse off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $434 worse o</span></strong>ff</li></ul><p>Dual income couple (70:30 income split) with three dependent children, one aged under five-year-old and two aged 6-12 </p><ul><li>On $30,000 a year: Average cost if living impact is $623, government assistance is $1322 - therefore $699 a year better off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $117 better off</span></strong></li><li>On $70,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $793, government assistance is $1265 - therefore $472 a year better off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $85 worse off</span></strong></li><li>On $120,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $1040, government assistance is $750 - therefore $290 a year worse off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $620 worse off</span></strong></li></ul><p>Single aged pensioner </p><ul><li>On $20,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $358, government assistance is $382 - therefore $24 a year better off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $144 worse off</span></strong></li><li>On $40,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $406, government assistance is $845 - therefore $439 a year better off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $67 better off</span></strong></li></ul><p>Age pensioner couple </p><ul><li>On $20,000 a year: Average cost of living impact $461, government assistance is $640 - therefore $179 a year better off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $103 worse off</span></strong></li><li>On $50,000 a year: Average cost of living impact is $611, government assistance is $1894 - therefore $1283 a year better off <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">- really $450 better off</span></strong></li></ul><br />In other words, most people will be worse off!<br /><br />Now, if an <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">emissions</span> trading scheme is such a great idea, why does the government need to bribe us to accept it?<br /><br />If the government is telling such obvious spin to exaggerate the effect of government assistance, what makes them think we are going to believe the cost of living impact will be as low as they say?<br /><br />What other spin has been put on the global warming and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">emissions</span> trading sales pitch?<div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-38620387609345951862008-12-14T16:56:00.004+10:002008-12-14T18:15:29.939+10:00UNFCCC working on son of Kyoto Protocol<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">AFP</span> yesterday reported the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">UNFCCC</span> has scheduled a program of work to be undertaken during 2009 which will culminate in another global agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol which ends in 2012.<br /><br /><blockquote>THE world's forum for tackling climate change has agreed on a program to culminate in a treaty to tackle the threat from greenhouse gases.<br />The 192-member UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">UNFCCC</span>) has set a schedule of work in 2009 designed to conclude with an historic pact in Copenhagen next December.<br />Taking effect after 2012, the envisioned deal will set down unprecedented measures for curbing emissions of heat-trapping carbon gases and helping poor countries in the firing line of climate change.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Refer full report at <a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24793989-23109,00.html">news.com</a><br /><br />The <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_14/items/4481.php"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">UNFCCC</span> website has several documents </a>which came out of the talks in Poznan over 1 -12 December 2008.<br /><br />The <a href="http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/3878.php"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">UNFCCC</span> Kyoto Protocol </a>page actually includes the work plan as a document link called <a href="http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594.php?rec=j&priref=600005055#beg" target="_top"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">FCCC</span>/KP/<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">AWG</span>/2008/L.19</a>. This is very heavy reading. In a nutshell it provides for further study on measuring greenhouse gases, improvements to emissions trading and tying <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">down</span> parties to the Kyoto Protocol to firm and detailed commitments and targets.<br /><br />This is part of several streams of activity leading up to the next major meeting in Copenhagen at the end of 2009. There are several working group meetings planned at different venues around the world to continue to prepare for the major meeting in Bali mid-year and then Copenhagen.<br /><br />While I was typing this the UNFCCC updated their website to say the decisions adopted during Poznan will be available there shortly.<br /><br />This very serious business and it is <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">apparent</span> that considerable resources are being <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">committed</span> to this process.<br /><br />There is still time for studying and lobbying.<div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-87464831320826443632008-12-14T07:37:00.008+10:002008-12-16T20:25:34.959+10:00Greenhouse Gases? What rubbish!<div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIMp_PlDGcPY8i2krGzYQJNrrVaBs9KHpIBJRIj5fDOcixsvjJ_kmHEKbkR-xZjri8CrNxbFkzsfOUjkH6jON75AiTBwOJs_uNgb7LbIY6QjTioiBrM7SNGuOhtNMms1iOVr39exyDLZdL/s1600-h/j0437717.GIF"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5279739702369753874" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 79px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 73px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIMp_PlDGcPY8i2krGzYQJNrrVaBs9KHpIBJRIj5fDOcixsvjJ_kmHEKbkR-xZjri8CrNxbFkzsfOUjkH6jON75AiTBwOJs_uNgb7LbIY6QjTioiBrM7SNGuOhtNMms1iOVr39exyDLZdL/s200/j0437717.GIF" border="0" /></a>Thought for the day -<br /><br />Why use high faluting words to describe a basic concept? Greenhouse gases are stuff we put into the air that some say shouldn't be there. So why not just call it, hmmm, let's see, ummm, I know - <strong><span style="color:#990000;">pollution</span></strong>!<br /><br /><p>This word has been around a lot longer than greenhouse gases.</p>If this doesn't sound technical enough, why not try atmospheric pollution?</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-8759824159020782652008-12-13T18:09:00.007+10:002008-12-15T06:19:54.124+10:00Why argue with solid ice core data?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxfQVlTPpbIg2uWUH7SAqSnPwH2aBw5nW1pEg-LhcnFrTLf6Nw3cNANIsV5ZJqoc2UkAZhCxfMJOQaFGY7PlNyCAVO5Mzfs9IW0T9dQWocxqTIMWUMuVAfLw-7nlnt49g_ZyG_H42psLWn/s1600-h/j0402236.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5279740403436139186" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 160px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxfQVlTPpbIg2uWUH7SAqSnPwH2aBw5nW1pEg-LhcnFrTLf6Nw3cNANIsV5ZJqoc2UkAZhCxfMJOQaFGY7PlNyCAVO5Mzfs9IW0T9dQWocxqTIMWUMuVAfLw-7nlnt49g_ZyG_H42psLWn/s200/j0402236.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />You freeze water and you get ice. During the freezing process some of the air that is around or dissolved in the water gets frozen too. However, when the ice melts, the frozen air goes too. See?<br /><br /><div></div><div>Back to my key credible source of information on global warming and climate change. Page 33 of the IPCC <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/pdf/spm.pdf">Summary for Policymakers in the Climate Change 2001 reports </a>has a great chart which illustrates the CO2 levels found in core ice which they somehow worked out was formed as far back as the year 1000. This shows very even concentrations of CO2 right up until more recent times when the scientists used direct atmospheric measurements (ie they used some real air). </div><div></div><br /><div>This is very impressive evidence that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were incredibly stable until the 20th century. When I read this graph I wondered what the ice core readings would show compared to the atmospheric readings for the past few decades. That would be really interesting! Hmmm. Maybe the ice core data isn't available because the polar ice caps have been melting, not building up to provide evidence for us to study?</div><div></div><br /><div>Ahhhh! That's why the CO2 concentration levels in ice cores are so consistent for the past thousand years! When there was more CO2, the world was warmer, the ice melted a little, and didn't build up. There is no evidence in the ice of higher CO2 concentrations because <strong><span style="color:#990000;">the evidence melted! </span></strong></div><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5279741924431577458" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 223px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 131px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkB1HnVJawI2aiQmJmKGyVhrBZI9BRvRZyqkJf9T8BEYi_tKy1zUECfjR70g2UkTV39ZZXiNBS0dfHNjR03WyLoA_MxeYlVT1c6c-SKRA2DsLDbrNh56xlYuBVIbF4tgMvWr1PMYziaBlD/s200/j0402100.jpg" border="0" /> <div></div><br /><div>What interesting item will I find in these reports next?</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-51823469870956766662008-12-13T15:01:00.004+10:002008-12-13T16:15:55.944+10:00Is Global Warming a Northern Hemisphere thing?An illustration in the IPCC report <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf">"Summary for Policymakers"</a> based on the fourth Assessment Report <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm">"Climate Change 2007"</a> shows a very interesting pattern.<br /><br />(I'll need to print the page and scan it in - sorry for the delay.)<br /><br />Refer to page 4 where there is a diagram of the world showing changes in surface temperatures from 1970 to 2004. There is a clear gradient in the degree of temperature change from the Arctic region with up to +3.5o C (increase) to -1o C (DECREASE!) in areas close to the Antarctic in the southern hemisphere.<br /><br />Why is this? (If you know, please post a comment.)<br /><br />It is also interesting that over 90% of the "Observed Data Series" for both physical and biological systems are for the Northern Hemisphere.<br /><br />So, what about these options?<br /><br /><ul><li>There is greater land mass in the northern hemisphere. But doesn't the land heat and cool faster than the sea?</li><li>There have been more temperature readings taken in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere temperature data isn't as complete.</li><li>There is a change in the position of the northern hemisphere relative to the southern hemisphere in relation to the sun in the long term cycle of the Earth's orbit.</li><li>There is more industry in the northern hemisphere and temperature change is localised to a greater extent than global.</li><li>Changes in the Earth's magnetic field has caused some particles (which absorb heat such as water vapour) to concentrate more in areas north of the Equator.</li><li>The scientists obtained temperature increase readings in the northern hemisphere more easily than in the southern hemisphere, so they have concentrated on studying those areas.</li><li>There are more politicians in the northern hemisphere (sorry - I couldn't resist that one!)</li><li>The readings which didn't support the Global Warming theory were filtered out.</li></ul>Interesting, but the illustration covers only a 34 year period. I did enough science at school to know that climatic trends span much greater time periods than that.<br /><br />Also, the report talks about "average" surface temperature change. If more readings are taken in the northern hemisphere land masses close to cities, then doesn't that make the "average" data skew towards those areas, and not give a picture of the globe overall? That's what I had thought they meant by "average" temperature change up until I saw this illustration. Now I need to find out what data points they used for this average, and how many readings were taken from each.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#660000;">Concern</span></strong> - Average means average of the data received, not average in global coverage.<br /><br />Another noteworthy point is that very few of the "Observed Data Readings" are in countries which the United Nation's Millenium Development Goals aim to assist. Hmmmm - that could be worthy of a blog post all on it's own!<br /><br />Interesting, but not conclusive. I'll keep reading................<div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-11133637001911206612008-12-13T12:44:00.004+10:002008-12-13T15:01:30.877+10:00IPCC says global warming is not a certainty!<span style="font-family:verdana;">Have you ever read an IPCC report?</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Having become increasingly curious and concerned about the direction governments are heading in the name of saving the planet from this thing called Global Warming, or Climate Change, I decided to do my own research. After reading a number of assorted items I found by searching Google, I decided I was ready to tackle the big one - IPCC.</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">First, let's tackle the acronym. IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Their website is at </span><a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/"><span style="font-family:verdana;">http://www.ipcc.ch/</span></a><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">On their website they have a number of reports dating back to 1990.</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">The IPCC is a scientific body which was set up by the WMO and UNEP in 1988. More acronyms! WMO is Wolrd Meteorological Organisation and UNEP is the United Nations Environment Programme. On their </span><a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm"><span style="font-family:verdana;">About IPCC </span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;">page they describes themselves as:</span><br /><br /><blockquote>The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World<br />Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment<br />Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :<br /><ul><li>The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of [member countries] participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate [in] the review of IPCC Reports. </li><li>The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the<br />work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers. </li><li>The people: as [an] United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals </li></ul></blockquote><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">So, this seems to be a very credible organisation. Pity the third dot point says they speak for "the people", and not that they consult them.</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">It is their work that lead to the Kyoto Protocol and the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). See why they use acronyms?</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">The IPCC has several classifications of publications:</span><br /><br /><ul><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">Assessment Reports</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">Special Reports</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">Technical Papers</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">Methodology Reports</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;">Supporting material</span></li></ul><span style="font-family:verdana;">IPCC has produced four Assessment Reports - 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007. The Assessment Reports have a number of parts or volumes. I found one of these, the Synthesis Report, which has a sub-report called "Summary for Policymakers" or SPM. Aha! This sounded like a good place to start. I downloaded the Summary for Policymakers for 2007 and 2001 last night.</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Talk about good bed time reading!</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">I had a quick overview of the headings and diagrams, and glanced through some of the text. I will progressively study some the IPCC documents and post some observations and questions as I go. Be patient, it will take me a while!</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Glancing through the 2007 Summary for Policymakers, some words caught my attention - <span style="font-size:130%;color:#993399;"><strong>"likely", "very likely", "high confidence", "very high confidence", "medium confidence" and "more likely than not"</strong></span>! </span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Having studied a little bit of statistics, and having worked in bureaucracy, I noted that the use of these words is significant. The words caught my attention because I don't recall the reports I have read and heard in the popular media using them.</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><strong><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">IPCC says that global warming is not a certainty!</span></strong><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;color:#ffcc00;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Talk about an "Aha!" moment!</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">They have my attention now. More reading and more blogging to come............</span><div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-50359167796778901222008-12-11T17:03:00.005+10:002008-12-11T17:34:12.742+10:00Business is scared and so am I!<span style="font-family:verdana;">Another snippet from the </span><a href="http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=695668"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Channel Nine News </span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;">website -</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><blockquote><p>As job losses mount because of the deteriorating world economy, opposition emissions trading spokesman Andrew Robb has again called for emissions trading to be delayed until 2012.</p><p><br />"If the government is not mugged by reality, certainly the rest of Australia is," Mr Robb said.</p><p><br />He said he had met with 51 companies recently and there was a "sense of fear" about the economic crisis. The last thing they needed was to grapple with emissions trading, Mr Robb said.</p><p><br />Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull said the design of the emissions trading scheme should be delayed until the outcome of UN climate negotiations late next year.</p></blockquote><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">The Government then countered with ......</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><blockquote>But Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he had always expected criticism for taking action on climate change.<br />"We'll be attacked on the hard right by various businesses for going too far," he said.<br />"You're going to have people out there like the Liberal Party on the far right saying don't do anything at all."<br /></blockquote><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">PM Rudd's statement loses credibility just by calling the Aussie Liberals "far right". Of course you are going to be criticised PM Rudd! Didn't you read your job description before you entered politics? Australia is one of the world's few true democracies, and people love to exercise their freedom of expression (within socially acceptable boundaries).</span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;">For the reader, I am not affiliated with any political party. I once was and have learned my lesson - reality and politics don't mix.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Back to the news item....</span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;">How is killing jobs and putting the ordinary people in the developed world into poverty going to help? (People in the under developed world won't get poorer - they'll just die - sometimes it is not possible to get poorer.) Don't tell me you expect a tax to reduce carbon emissions? The rich will get richer, albeit more slowly, and the ordinary and the poor will get poorer. But carbon will keep pumping into the atmosphere.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;">What makes PM Rudd and his career focused advisers think that this will help stop the climate changing? Do they have a policy on stopping the tide from coming in and out?</span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Recent news is that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are still rising, but temperatures are moderating. The problem with letting politicians make the climate decisions is that they are focused on winning the next election in three or four years, and not in long term phenomena, like the climate. When we are too poor (because we squandered resources on chasing a vote winner) to adjust to whatever climate the earth's orbit and other physical realities throw at us, PM Rudd will either be retired and suffering along with his grandchildren, or no longer on this Earth.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Will someone PLEASE take off the short term blinkers and look at a hugely long term picture?</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span><div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-11450558333815071552008-12-11T16:53:00.003+10:002008-12-11T17:03:07.557+10:00La Nina is coming to visit again!<span style="font-family:verdana;">Aha! Rain is on its way! Good news! Another piece of good news is that when I read yesterday's Channel Nine News website item from which this extract was taken, they didn't mention Global Warming or Climate Change once!</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><blockquote>The Bureau of Meteorology said most experts were tipping neutral summer<br />conditions but some thought La Nina could be on the way.<br />"The development of a La Nina during the southern summer cannot be ruled out," the Bureau said in a statement.<br />"Some La Nina characteristics (are) developing across the Pacific."<br />This last happened in an Australian summer in 1999.</blockquote><span style="font-family:verdana;">I doubt this will last though, at the first flood or cyclone, I bet those terms come out in headlines.</span> <span style="font-family:verdana;">Where did the reporter get this quote from though? The Aussie Bureau of Meteorology News pages don't have this posted yet.<br /></span><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443690677801730172.post-26886584860848650722008-12-02T18:20:00.011+10:002008-12-15T06:39:01.453+10:00I'm Confused<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibCnypUcjx7wxYnz6k7HM1_on1RICEHg9C3KMyGzY9SUt4LOe5J6mKhxnoyLJG2xL6LJBVzofmqrVlNl2twdoqRVc6AHfIsPCdpSJs8SNN7MaxMhhxwnxBJquFOubw7Mdh6bn2ldzBbS7G/s1600-h/j0437253.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5279747501916534770" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibCnypUcjx7wxYnz6k7HM1_on1RICEHg9C3KMyGzY9SUt4LOe5J6mKhxnoyLJG2xL6LJBVzofmqrVlNl2twdoqRVc6AHfIsPCdpSJs8SNN7MaxMhhxwnxBJquFOubw7Mdh6bn2ldzBbS7G/s200/j0437253.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;">I don't know what you think (and I would like to), but I am rather sceptical about all this doomsayer talk about global warming and climate change.</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;">I have been on this planet for over forty years, and I recall when my part of the world had the textbook sub-tropical climate. I walked to and from school in the rain in January and February. Until a decade or so ago the thunderstorm season was pretty predictable - October/ November every year. Summers were warm and winters were cool enough to need a jumper for weeks. Cyclones occurred along the Queensland coast nearly every summer. The dams were full. Dam water was released periodically to avoid flooding overflows.</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;">In recent years the dams nearly emptied. Household rainwater tanks which were once banned by local councils have now become a must-have accessory for all new houses and many established ones. Cyclones on the Queensland coast still occur, but much less frequently. I can't remember the last time I had to walk through rain in my home town. I can't even remember where my umbrella is.</span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Things HAVE changed. But is this short term? Is it just a minor cyclical change in the greater scheme of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">things</span> and in the history of this planet? If not, what IS the cause?</span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;">The popular media would have us believe that this is due to human beings burning fossil fuels which have released carbon in the form of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This in turn has changed the atmosphere and made the planet warmer. Warmer <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">temperatures</span> have changed the cycle of evaporation and precipitation. Droughts have become more extensive. The polar ice caps are melting and the ozone layer in the atmosphere is thinning to the extent that there are holes in the ozone layer at both poles.</span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Although I have observed some of these things myself, I am sceptical about whether these are recent phenomena, they are long term events, and whether they are totally influenced by man.</span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Don't get me wrong. I AM concerned about the ecological balance of this planet. I would even say I am a tree-hugger. It is BECAUSE I am concerned about the planet and the beauty and diversity of life on this planet that I believe that we need to ensure that mankind truly understands what is happening, whether it is a long term or short term event, and what is causing it.</span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;">Please add comments or email posts to me to add to this blog. It is through ordinary people who care that real and positive change occurs.</span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><strong>So - let's chat!</strong></span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">This post is from climate-change-debate.blogspot.com</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0