Global Warming

[Freezer]

The obvious error with that graph is that most AGW skeptics use that highest outlier as a starting point.

On the contrary, I think sceptics look back over hundreds of thousands/millions of years and see that these types of interglacial warming periods have been happening since the dawn if time. Suggesting that a 65ppm (0.0065%) increase in CO2 in the last 120 years or so is the cause, leaves room for some scepticism.

 

[evo]

... I would recommend Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

They[Seitz, Singer, Nierenberg and Robert Jastrow] feared that an over-reaction to environmental problems would lead to heavy-handed government intervention in the marketplace and intrusion into people's lives.

Yeah, well thankfully that never happened. ;D

 

[evo]

Did you know that in 2010 the heavy rains that develop in the Caribbean and usually dump on Russia (feeding much of the world's grain harvest) missed Russia entirely and instead carried on to India where it dropped during their monsoon season, producing 6 times their normal rainfall and killing 50000 people? Does that not strike you as a fairly dramatic and alarming disturbance in the climate as we've known it?

no. In statistics, they are called outliers. I think that it what annoys me most about discussions about AGW: the media in particular exploit outliers to demonstrate how 'real' it is every time there is an unusual event. But when someone mentions that
it is unusually cold in the middle of december, for example, apparently that is merely 'weather' (rather than climate).

Nevertheless I agree with your previous post. Sustainable energy self-sufficiency is a worthy goal.

 

[Disco08]

Yeah, contrary statistics within reason are outliers, statistics which are so far off as to be pretty much unexplainable are often seen as reason to find a further underlying factor. EG - Manny Ramirez is a career .300 hitter but in half a year his average is .110. Way beyond the normal range so there must be extenuating circumstances. Turns out Manny has a previously undetected lower back problem and needs immediate surgery.

Similar to this is the situation as described by the climate expert I saw on the telly. The rain didn't miss Russia by a bit. I didn't rain a little bit less. It missed by wide margin and carried on to the other side of the globe, carried by the gulfstreams climate experts warn can *smile* things up. It didn't rain at all in Russia (down from the heavy rain they expect that time of year, and have done for many years) and instead dropped on India where they had 6 times their already massive monsoonal rains. If that's an outlier I'd like to know where they draw the line between outlier and anomaly.

 

[marella jube]

...so the sky really is falling ?!

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/falling-clouds-could-counter-global-warming-20120222-1tmpw.html

Falling clouds could counter global warming February 22, 2012 - 1:16PM

Clouds around the world may be falling in response to rising global temperatures and having a cooling effect on global warming, according to analysis of satellite data by Auckland University scientists.

The first 10 years of data from the NASA Terra satellite, which uses nine cameras at different angles to produce a stereo image of the world's clouds, shows their average height has lowered by about 1 per cent, or 30 to 40 metres.

Most of the reduction was due to fewer clouds occurring at very high altitudes, says the study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Advertisement: Story continues below "This is the first time we have been able to accurately measure changes in global cloud height and, while the record is too short to be definitive, it provides just a hint that something quite important might be going on," said lead researcher, Professor Roger Davies.

In a "negative feedback mechanism", lower cloud height would allow the Earth to cool to space more efficiently, reducing the surface temperature of the planet and potentially slowing the effects of global warming.

"We don't know exactly what causes the cloud heights to lower but it must be due to a change in the circulation patterns that give rise to cloud formation at high altitude," Professor Davies said.

The Terra satellite is scheduled to continue gathering data through the remainder of this decade.

"If cloud heights come back up in the next 10 years we would conclude that they are not slowing climate change," Professor Davies said.

"But if they keep coming down it will be very significant."

AAP



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/falling-clouds-could-counter-global-warming-20120222-1tmpw.html#ixzz1n5V9p2A8

 

[Freezer]

Seems it may have been a slight over-reaction to alarmist calls that Victoria was never going to see another drop of rain again. Hope you're all enjoying lining the pockets of Aquasure.

$5 billion water bill bleeds us dry
by: Stephen Drill From: Herald Sun March 10, 2012 12:00AM

VICTORIA would need to be in drought for eight years before a drop of water was required from the Wonthaggi desalination plant, scientists say.

But taxpayers will pay more than $5 billion in that time to have access to the water.

As floods swamp the northeast, critics have questioned why the plant was built.

Prof Hector Malano, a water resource management expert at the University of Melbourne, said Melbourne's current water storages would last until 2020 even if there were a drought.

"It would be up to eight years depending on the climate and population growth," he said.

"Desalination is the last option that you want to use. But once the decision is made to begin building the plant, we will be paying for it for some time."

The desalination plant will cost taxpayers $24 billion over 30 years. Victorians will pay desalination plant project company AquaSure $1.8 million a day for access to water at the plant, even if none is used; $5.2 billion by 2020.

Water storages are 64.7 per cent full after hitting a record low of 25.6 per cent in June 2009.

In further potential pain to taxpayers, AquaSure has demanded a $1.3 billion loan to refinance its debt and a 12-month deadline extension from the State Government.

It also claimed a $560 million payment this year even though it doubted the plant would be finished.

Mark Robertson, president of anti-desalination campaigners Watershed, said the plant should never have been built.

"We survived during the drought with water restrictions and that didn't cost anything or have the environmental effects," he said.

Water Minister Peter Walsh said the Labor government had panicked during the drought when it ordered the plant.

"The previous government should have acted before the drought occurred by looking at stormwater and recycled water for non-drinking purposes," he said.

Mr Walsh said he would vigorously defend AquaSure's financial claims, adding he would not sign anything that was not value for money for taxpayers.

An AquaSure spokeswoman said: "Like any other major project contract, there are provisions in our contract with the state for AquaSure to lodge claims in certain circumstances."

 

[MB78]

Shocking waste of money.

I think major water projects should be done only by the Fed Gov. A pipeline North South from QLD to Vic would have been the better way to go. It would have also greatly assisted SA as it could have boosted supply to the Murray River.

 

[evo]

Shocking waste of money.

I think major water projects should be done only by the Fed Gov. A pipeline North South from QLD to Vic would have been the better way to go.

Or even South-North from Tasmania. The Age's Kenneth Davidson used to write great articles on the subject

The Desalination plant is the biggest white elephant in Victorias history. Quite an achievement.

 

[Merveille]

Frightening that these measures are even discussed. Eugenics, modification of children. Why does this make my stomach churn, and makes me angry at the same time. All in the name of climate change, wtf.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-human-engineering-could-be-the-solution-to-climate-change/253981/

 

[Giardiasis]

http://afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/science_held_hostage_in_climate_Uamwgc7zXEsU6RbQJ5MWIJ#

 

[Freezer]

http://afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/science_held_hostage_in_climate_Uamwgc7zXEsU6RbQJ5MWIJ#

Great. Another article by one of those 'dumb' scientists.

Please stick to posting things from real scientists in this thread.

 

[AngryAnt]

Frightening that these measures are even discussed. Eugenics, modification of children. Why does this make my stomach churn, and makes me angry at the same time. All in the name of climate change, wtf.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-human-engineering-could-be-the-solution-to-climate-change/253981/

My advice to you is to steer clear of the work of nutty NYU bioethics professors.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

What frustrates me is the high-jacking of a legitimate conversation about the best way forward (regardless of hysterical media hyperbole) for political self-interest. It can only be beneficial to generate more of our electricity from renewable sources. There isn't a down side to this. Even if the climate debate is complete nonsense (I don't think it is) we can only be better off with fewer nuclear and coal power plants, fewer fossil fuel burning cars and trucks and trains. That only has positive outcomes. Why fight that?

 

[Disco08]

A lot of money has been spent and blood spilt over those fossil fuels.

 

[mld]

What frustrates me is the high-jacking of a legitimate conversation about the best way forward (regardless of hysterical media hyperbole) for political self-interest. It can only be beneficial to generate more of our electricity from renewable sources. There isn't a down side to this. Even if the climate debate is complete nonsense (I don't think it is) we can only be better off with fewer nuclear and coal power plants, fewer fossil fuel burning cars and trucks and trains. That only has positive outcomes. Why fight that?

I guess the argument is, that if power is being sourced from more expensive forms of energy production, then people will be directing more of their income to servicing the resulting higher energy costs, which flows onto reduced disposable incomes and a related lower standard of living.

It is up to everyone to come to their own conclusion as to whether a lower standard of living is an acceptable pay off for more expensive but cleaner energy. As most of us choose to live affluent western lifestyles, I'm not going to judge people poorly either way.

 

[tigersnake]

I guess the argument is, that if power is being sourced from more expensive forms of energy production, then people will be directing more of their income to servicing the resulting higher energy costs, which flows onto reduced disposable incomes and a related lower standard of living.

It is up to everyone to come to their own conclusion as to whether a lower standard of living is an acceptable pay off for more expensive but cleaner energy. As most of us choose to live affluent western lifestyles, I'm not going to judge people poorly either way.

yeah true mld that is the argument. But as you probably know it rests on flawed assumptions. The 2 big ones are externalising the costs of pollution, as has been the case so far. And externalising future impacts. Another factor is the failure to acknowledge the amount of energy that is currently routinely wasted. Short term individuals and firms will start to think seriously about power consumption.

 

[mld]

yeah true mld that is the argument. But as you probably know it rests on flawed assumptions. The 2 big ones are externalising the costs of pollution, as has been the case so far. And externalising future impacts. Another factor is the failure to acknowledge the amount of energy that is currently routinely wasted. Short term individuals and firms will start to think seriously about power consumption.

Yes, my post was in the context of Knighter's premise that there is no downside at all in moving to renewable energy.

There are costs involved in moving to more expensive forms of energy, and as you state there are reasons to be made why those costs should be paid. I don't think it is helpful to pretend that isn't the case.

 

[Merveille]

My advice to you is to steer clear of the work of nutty NYU bioethics professors.

Your advice.....?? Spare me. :

 

[jamo]

Is it real or not, too many decent arguments from both sides

 

[AngryAnt]

Your advice.....?? Spare me. :

Hey Mervs, I'm actually agreeing with you that the guy is a nut.

Unfortunately that doesn't suit your alarmist agenda. So yeah, keep being scandalised and outraged dude, it's a good look for you.