How Bad Is Global Warming?

[smiths]

funny that you posted this old line Ben

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair.

That could be the opening line of Australia's eulogy

climate change skepticism is very strong here amongst boof-heads and 'independent' thinkers - the reliance on mining and all that coal being dug up, burnt and sold as Australia's 2nd largest revenue stream is probably a coincidence (wait till we get onto uranium)

a mate of mine once joked that the only way Australians would accept solar power was if we buried millions of solar panels and allowed the mining industry to dig them back up again

aside from global climate change Ben,
what do you think to mining destroying value farmland on the east coast Ben?
and what do you think to fracking and the poisonous waste waters it produces?
what do you think to allowing mining in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

do you vote Green but think that science the Greens are using is incorrect, or do you, by some freak chance, think that small government is best and the Liberals in coalition with some group of tea party-esque libertarians would do the best for Australia going forward?

i'll go out on a real limb here, did you dislike Julia Gillard intensely?

please give honest answers

[Ben D]

Sorry smiths...I don't watch TV or listen to the radio, as I have little interest in national, state, and local political issues, so I'll pass on your questions.

However I do take a keen interest in global climate science....

[Ben D]

zangtang...

[Ben D]

Hi Iam...I note your comment and ask that you read my last comment to DrEvil.

I agree about the need to get particulate pollution levels down, much more urgent than CO2 imo....but IPCC climate science doesn't address this problem.

And thanks...."I'm a Believer" brought some old memories back...I love loving!

[Luther Blissett]

Also note that since the UN and governments of the world subscribe to agw, naturally only those scientists whose research is pro-agw are able to get grants from their respective governments...and so while agw skeptical scientists may complain about this, in practical terms, it couldn't be any other way....

Ah, so every single government on the planet is in on it too. Is there anyone who is not?

Also, I said scientists, not agw skeptical scientists. Why aren't scientists from other fields and departments all over the climate scientists if it's all a scam? If it's so obvious to enlightened people like you it should be obvious to people trained in the scientific method that it's all hokum, but apart from the occasional paid schill there's nary a peep. Do you really think that the vast majority would stand by and say nothing while governments and institutions piss away billions? Is every scientist on the planet, regardless of their field of expertise, part of the conspiracy?

My friend, a scientist who researches lubricants at ExxonMobil, is skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. He insists that the global climate is better than it's ever been.

[Wombaticus Rex]

it could be that you're a great bloke - but go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw.

Why, though?

Enjoy a week off.

[Iamwhomiam]

No warnings! The day of the jackal wombat is here!

Thought I'd add this on edit: Learn to control yourself or someone else will. Before launching into a juvenile tirade, first imagine you're addressing a cantaloupe. If that doesn't convince you you'd be wasting your words of scorn, you deserve a week off. Be nice. Don't be a base debaser.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Ben D your real name isn't Iain Hall is it?

[Joe Hillshoist]

That could be the opening line of Australia's eulogy

hey smiths

Hows it going?

Its already a hot summer and its probably going to get worse.

Back to Ben:

[The skeptical agw science community are trying to do science free from a predetermined conclusion that human CO2 emissions are the cause of what could be predominately natural climate change.]

Are you saying CO2 does not absorb then emit heat? Because that is what doing "science free from a predetermined conclusion that human CO2 emissions are the cause of what could be predominately natural climate change" would rely on. And unless you can show actual scientific evidence that CO2 doesn't absorb then emit infrared energy then your premise is flawed. And good luck with that because it flies in the face of 100+ years of peer reviewed, tested (and retested) physics.

If you think CO2 does emit and absorb heat, just not at a rate high enough to influence the global climate then feel free to determine exactly how much is retained by CO2's relationship with IR energy with current levels of CO2 and why it could not possibly increase the earth's temp by any significant amount. That shouldn't be too hard. Its just a few equations yeah?

[Iamwhomiam]

Hi Joe. I guess your little one isn't quite so tiny anymore. I wish you and yours well.

This time I hope we'll see some acknowledgment, Joe. I know we've raised this issue many times before but it seems always to have been ignored or not given any credence.

As far back as January of 2010 I raised the impact of the heating of flotsam on our oceans and many times I've pointed out the warming of our atmosphere being caused by microscopic or nano-sized carbon black particulates as well as other massive amounts of tiny chemical compounds with warming potentials thousands of times that of Methane.

Like a broken washing machine in a laundry you keep pumping quarters into, it just never adds up to a meaningful positive result.

Ben, that petition is bogus. Oh, it's real alright, but it has no bearing on the science or the clearly observable effects from our changing climate. But it's as annoying as you flapping Watt or It's the Sun, Stupid or some other such nonsense at us.

[Ben D]

^ Hi Joe...long time no see...welcome back. I've never heard of Iain Hall...my name is Ben!

I allow that you have not had time to read my comments on this thread to know my position is that climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions is insufficient to blame the human contribution as being the predominate cause of global warming in the late 20th century.

The agw science position that you support argues that CO2 climate sensitivity is sufficiently high that the human contribution caused the warming of the late 20th century, and predicted increased warming in the 21st century. But since there has been no further warming in the 21st century, the climate models are being falsified. Here is a graph showing the performance of the ninety agw computer generated climate models, using various calculated CO2 sensitivity levels, for temperature projections in the 21st century compared to actual observed temperatures...the background and joke is explained by Dr Spencer...click on the image.



As a result of the agw model projections growing deviation from the actual observed temperatures...some climate scientists are now producing peer reviewed papers acknowledging that CO2 sensitivity is lower than previously calculated....see Climate not as sensitive to carbon dioxide If that link is paywalled...try this...http://www.wsj.com/articles/judith-curry-the-global-warming-statistical-meltdown-1412901060 ...actual paper...https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/lewiscurry_ar5-energy-budget-climate-sensitivity_clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf

[Joe Hillshoist]

Can you explain that graph Ben?

ADDIT

Yeah about Iain Hall. He's just some guy on that interweb thing.

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Iain_Hall

[Joe Hillshoist]

Hi Joe. I guess your little one isn't quite so tiny anymore. I wish you and yours well.

Thanks for those well wishes - right back at ya.

No she isn't that little any more. She is gonna be a handful. She is already an incredibly switched on smartarse. Absolutely awesome tho.

I live in a country where this just happened:

Queensland Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney has intervened to force the removal of all references to climate change-derived sea level rises from the regional plan of Moreton Bay Regional Council, a decision experts say could have wide ramifications.

Queensland Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney has intervened to force the removal of all references to climate change-derived sea level rises from the regional plan of Moreton Bay Regional Council, a decision experts say could have wide ramifications.

In a letter to the council dated November 28, Mr Seeney wrote: "I direct council to amend its draft planning scheme to remove any assumption about a theoretical projected sea level rise from all and any provision of the scheme."

The council is obliged by law to obey the direction.

Councils across Queensland are now worried they could face huge liabilities for failing to take climate change into consideration in local planning, and the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) has sought legal advice on their behalf.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-09/s ... an/5954914

Admittedly its Queensland where they do things differently. Currently beer, chocolate and saffron are illegal, smoking a joint with the wrong person or riding a harley with 2 other people could get you 15 years in jail and someone got arrested recently for wearing a Sons of Anarchy shirt. But still - wtf?!!! This is a state govt deliberately interfering with a local govt in order to prevent it taking precautions about something that is already threatening it? Sweeney is an idiot and a criminal and should be investigated for corruption and perverting the course of justice. Turns out he's also a monumental idiot, as well as a garden variety one.

I'm pretty sure Ben lives in Queensland, or did when I was last here.

[Ben D]

Can you explain that graph Ben?

Of course...the warming projections (various colours) are agw computer models produced by climate scientists, and used by the UN IPCC, each estimating a different CO2 GHG effect wrt climate sensitivity. The bolded black line with dots is the average of all climate model warming projections. The UAH bolded blue line with dots is UAH actual observed satellite remote sensed global average upper atmospheric temperature, and the green bolded line with dots is the HadCRUT4 observed global land and sea surface average temperatures from the Climate Research Unit, both of which are recognized standards used by the UN IPCC, and are used to compare the efficacy of the models.

I got the impression from your earlier comment that you think the science was able to calculate accurately CO2 climate sensitivity...this is not the case, climate scientists only use estimates based on what happens in a controlled lab environment, and 'play' with climate variables to predict the future state of global temperature....actual reality is much more complex and thus the models are failing miserably to predict the temperature even a decade ahead.

ps...Joe...concerning that Iain Hall link...I see now you were implying I am a right wing troll when you asked if I were he, you clearly haven't read my comments on Iraq, Israel, Syria, Iran, etc., over the years. And in any event, do you think there is a rule here that RI members be in solidarity and should conform to the belief that humans are the main cause of climate change, else they are considered right wing trolls? If you or anyone else can confirm that RI admin is in agreement with this view concerning myself, or even that skeptics of agw in general are not welcome at RI, then I will most certainly request cancellation of my RI account immediately.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Cheers Ben, and i'm wondering if you could tell me what do the axes show?

The Iain Hall thing was a throwaway line. Just a shot at Queenslanders and climate change. To be honest you are far more pleasant company than Iain and you can spell and construct sentences.

I got the impression from your earlier comment that you think the science was able to calculate accurately CO2 climate sensitivity...this is not the case, climate scientists only use estimates based on what happens in a controlled lab environment, and 'play' with climate variables to predict the future state of global temperature....actual reality is much more complex and thus the models are failing miserably to predict the temperature even a decade ahead.

it is to a point. As you say a lot is estimates and messing around with variables, my point was that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation from a particular direction and emits it in all directions including back to its source. It happens, its not deniable. You'd have to disprove that to be able to say with confidence that human activity has no effect on warming the planet. So we increase the planets temperature by burning fossil fuels. The same physics that predicts that enables this conversation. If something else is causing the majority of AGHW we are compounding the problem by burning fossil fuels. Unless someone can show that it doesn't cause the warming or has no measureable effect.

As a side note, AGW from GHGs aside. Economic activity causes AGW. All economic activity can be tied directly to warming the planet. All economic activity is a measure of energy use, and all energy use involves waste heat... which is another good reason to limit GHGs regardless of what role they play in this current heating phase, the one that didn't stop in 1998.

And in any event, do you think there is a rule here that RI members be in solidarity and should conform to the belief that humans are the main cause of climate change, else they are considered right wing trolls?

No there isn't as far as i know, but its actually a pretty good general principle. Personally yeah they should, unless they can show otherwise. (Its like believing the world isn't flat. its kind of a matter of not so much belief as acknowledgement of reality.) At the moment you're in the process of not doing that. And look you can believe what you want but your beliefs shouldn't interfere with necessary public policy.

I don't think its a banning offense yet but by the time my daughter is an adult it might be more than that.