Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time,...

[Desertdog]

Global warming debunked
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.

A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.

"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.

"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."

Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.

"The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?

"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said.

[wacki]

Please tell Augie Auer that James Annan and many other climatologists are willing to bet 5 figure numbers (in American dollars) that the earth will be warmer and the global ice mass will be down in 20 years.  Oh, and to sweeten the deal they are willing to give favorable odds to the skeptics.

So far nobody is biting.....

[Matthew Carberry]

Ah, but will they be able to prove it was human created or accelerated vice a rapid uptick in a longer-term warming cycle?  If they can't definitively do that, they ain't getting the money.

I don't think there's much argument that climate is changing, perhaps drastically.  The conflict, as you know, is whether we are indeed causing it and whether we can or should do anything about it.

If more research shows that the current warming period has been going on since long before the Industrial Rev. but that it has spiked since, that's still not definitively causal.  Strongly, maybe extremely, correlative but there's lots of research and refinement of methods and models to be done.

Even if it does turn out to be more or less caused by us, can we reverse it or slow it down in a cost-effective manner?  Are adaptation and technological fixes a better route than overturning the economies of the developed world?  Are the "best solutions" the one being called for by those consensus bodies, which appear uniformly statist?

Will we lose species?  Will people have to move?  If the overall warming trend is natural, should we care?  The world we happen to live in is a brief snapshot in history, are we arrogant enough to think climate should stay static for our convenience?

That's my beef, economic and philosophical.  The current consensus outcry has a bit more fervency and documented lack of tolerance for dissent than I'm comfortable with.  Especially given the political players on the "sky is falling" side of the house.

[kldimond]

Please tell Augie Auer that James Annan and many other climatologists are willing to bet 5 figure numbers (in American dollars) that the earth will be warmer and the global ice mass will be down in 20 years.  Oh, and to sweeten the deal they are willing to give favorable odds to the skeptics.

So far nobody is biting.....

An interesting update on global climate change... some Russian scientist researching the matter says that warming will end in 5 years, and a cooling period will begin. He's already fretting about what will be happening 50 years hence...

I think there's a lot to fret about, but climate change is probably one of the lesser. If you look at social cycles and social tensions, a lot is coming together in the next five years or so.

Anyone here familiar with the Mayan calendar, and the calculations that 2012 (21 December) is the last day shown on the calendar, signifying the end of the "long cycle"? Could it be that TEOTWAWKI will be when tyranny vs freedom comes to a head? TEOTWAWKI as the advent of a more civil civilization??

What a concept! But think of the tensions and travails on the way. Scary stuff!

Hey folks. My first post here. I hadn't realized I could post without a "reply" button. Ah well.

I got a kick out of the discussion a few weeks back about "what sci fi tv show do you fit in?" My first thought was Galaxy Quest, but it was only a fictional tv show in the movie of the same name. The quiz pegged me at 100% for Serenity (Firefly). Next score was a tie for Babylon 5 and Farscape at 75%. My worst was Star Trek D. I suppose it's because there was too much structure in that series?...

[lupinus]

global warming isn't a sham, it is happening.  What people fail to realize is that it is the natural cycle the planet goes through and theres not a damn thing you can do to change the fact.  It gets hotter, it gets cooler, the planet has been doing it for the billions of years it's been floating around in space, chit happens get over it move on and theres not a whole hell of a lot to worry about cause theres not much to change it.

Now yes there is poloution and such that shouldn't be allowed, but global warming?  It happens and has all through history and is fairly well documented.

[Iain]

There's another thread you might want to read.

Perhaps we need a 'All global warming stuff goes here' thread.

[Perd Hapley]

Iain, I don't know why you still bother.   

[HankB]

Please tell Augie Auer that James Annan and many other climatologists are willing to bet 5 figure numbers (in American dollars) that the earth will be warmer and the global ice mass will be down in 20 years.  Oh, and to sweeten the deal they are willing to give favorable odds to the skeptics.

If it were around 1300 AD or so (I'd have to verify the date) I'd be inclined to take that bet - the Little Ice Age was just getting started.

How about manmade local darkening?

As I write this, it's shortly before 8 AM local time . . . I'd be willing to bet 5-figure numbers (in American dollars) that Austin will be darker in 20 hours. And to sweeten the deal I'm willing to give favorable odds to the skeptics.

If I have no takers . . . should I take that as proof that even my critics don't really disbelieve my theory of manmade local darkening?

[wacki]

Please tell Augie Auer that James Annan and many other climatologists are willing to bet 5 figure numbers (in American dollars) that the earth will be warmer and the global ice mass will be down in 20 years.  Oh, and to sweeten the deal they are willing to give favorable odds to the skeptics.

If it were around 1300 AD or so (I'd have to verify the date) I'd be inclined to take that bet - the Little Ice Age was just getting started.

How about manmade local darkening?

As I write this, it's shortly before 8 AM local time . . . I'd be willing to bet 5-figure numbers (in American dollars) that Austin will be darker in 20 hours. And to sweeten the deal I'm willing to give favorable odds to the skeptics.

If I have no takers . . . should I take that as proof that even my critics don't really disbelieve my theory of manmade local darkening?

Betting on the on the sunsetting at night?  When has anyone debated the night and day?  I understand you are making an odd attempt to belittle my comment.  But the truth to the matter is that these skeptics (which make up less than 0.5% of the climate scientists worldwide) have no standing papers, have no supportable theories, have no supportable data, and are merely sound bites that happen to have a Ph.D. behind their name.  What attempts many of these skeptics/deniers have made are fraught with mistakes that would get you in trouble in highschool level science and math classes.  (See McKitricks recent screwup of high school level thermodynamics equation)  Maybe you should ask yourself why a large portion of these skeptics don't believe tobacco is causing cancer, don't believe CFC's are damaging the ozone layer, don't believe in evolution (different than genesis), and one of them doesn't even believe HIV causes AIDS.

The skeptics/deniers are in such a minority and the vast majority of them are so incompetent (i.e Beck, Michaels, Seitz, Tim Ball, Jaworowski, Louis Hissink, Milloy)  that it's very difficult for me to take anyone that trusts them seriously.  So if you want to try and insult me fine.  But I have a pretty strong understanding of the science and it's much easier for me to say "put your money where your mouth is" instead of trying to spoon feed high-school and undergraduate level information to someone that doesn't want to listen anyway.  If you are willing to listen you might want to check out the other thread.  Please make sure you read the entire thread before responding.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

you know whats amusing?  that so many of the "scientists" chanting the sky is falling have such varied interests.  geriatric medicine butterflys specialists  pharmecuticals etc.  i don't know that many meteorologistd  maybe 50 all told . none of them deny temperature change  but only 10 think that man is the reason.  and of those only 6 are in the chicken lil camp.  and strangly enough 4 are unrepentant wobblies. it seems that there is correlation between number of kerry and gore stickers on your car with the level of belief in chicken lil.

[HankB]

Betting on the on the sunsetting at night?  When has anyone debated the night and day?  I understand you are making an odd attempt to belittle my comment. 

The point was that betting on a natural process (like night and day) isn't going to get any takers. A reluctance to bet against warming temperatures and reduction in ice mass after an ice age - or even a Little Ice Age - ends is to be expected, does not constitute tacit acceptance of the manmade global warming hypothesis, and does not discredit skeptics.

[mountainclmbr]

Those who want to control the activities of others will always come up with reasons to justify their meddling.

[wacki]

Betting on the on the sunsetting at night?  When has anyone debated the night and day?  I understand you are making an odd attempt to belittle my comment.

The point was that betting on a natural process (like night and day) isn't going to get any takers. A reluctance to bet against warming temperatures and reduction in ice mass after an ice age - or even a Little Ice Age - ends is to be expected, does not constitute tacit acceptance of the manmade global warming hypothesis, and does not discredit skeptics.

Maybe you need to read these quotes:

predict in the next 5 or 8 years or so the globe is going to begin to cool as it did in the middle 40's." -Dr. Gray

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/11/bill-gray-wont-bet-on-cooling.html

Richard Lindzen says he's willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now. -Reason Magazine
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

of course they both backed down when challenged.  These sound bites are for the press and little more.

Also if the warming is a natural process then you need to explain what in nature is changing naturally.  Heres a hint: it's not the sun and it's not the earths orbit.  Until you can describe a mechanism you are merely stating your opinion and in science unsupported opinions are worthless.  Please move your comments into the other thread so I'm not forced to repeat myself.  Lots of good info in that thread.

[Desertdog]

in science unsupported opinions are worthless.

True, so why has the Global Warming people getting so much press?

[richyoung]

Betting on the on the sunsetting at night?  When has anyone debated the night and day?  I understand you are making an odd attempt to belittle my comment.

The point was that betting on a natural process (like night and day) isn't going to get any takers. A reluctance to bet against warming temperatures and reduction in ice mass after an ice age - or even a Little Ice Age - ends is to be expected, does not constitute tacit acceptance of the manmade global warming hypothesis, and does not discredit skeptics.

Maybe you need to read these quotes:

predict in the next 5 or 8 years or so the globe is going to begin to cool as it did in the middle 40's." -Dr. Gray

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/11/bill-gray-wont-bet-on-cooling.html

Richard Lindzen says he's willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now. -Reason Magazine
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

of course they both backed down when challenged.  These sound bites are for the press and little more.

Also if the warming is a natural process then you need to explain what in nature is changing naturally.  Heres a hint: it's not the sun

WRONG!

and it's not the earths orbit.

 

Technically true - the obit is the same, we are just in the PART of it that is warmer.

Until you can describe a mechanism you are merely stating your opinion and in science unsupported opinions are worthless.

 

[mountainclmbr]

Ice core data from Antarctica indicates cycles of warming, cooling and CO2 change that go back 400,000 years or so. The current trend is on the warming/CO2 increase part of the cycle, but it doesn't look different from indicators in previous cycles. See the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

[mountainclmbr]

It just started snowing at Casa Mountainclmbr. No kidding!

[Tallpine]

It's raining here.  Might turn to snow tonite.  The drouth must be over.

We have a fire in the woodstove for the first time in weeks.

All that dang CO2 is making the grass grow so fast that I can't keep up with mowing

[wacki]

Richyoung, please tell me if these two graphs line up:





One is the sun, one is the temp.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/the-sun-is-the-problem.html

If you have proof that it is the sun I suggest you show it.  Your answer will tell me what your intent in this thread is.

[Desertdog]

I was always told that figures don't lie; but liers can figure.

Also was told; it is easy to make the result whatever you want; by picking the numbers to fit the solution your looking for.

[roo_ster]

wacki:

You might want to extend your x-axis back a bit farther than 1978 and look at the result.

[Harold Tuttle]

IMHO, making claims about 10,000 year trends in terms of data post 1975 is a tad short sighted

The Oceans are a HUGE planetary heat sink

If their temps are rising,
than it is the result of input from hundreds of years ago

If something raises the temperature of the oceans and planetary water vapor increases...

Truth be told,
the ice ages have erased human progress from the planet several times in the past.
Ivory carving trade cultures from middle europe were replaced with manuport hauling crude stone knappers.

given either ice age or GW
I would like to hope human green house emissions are an unintended consequence that keeps us from freezing out again.

[mountainclmbr]

Some historical citings mentioned here:

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html#1

Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?

We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went, he says. There used to be less ice than now. Its just getting back to normal.

[Desertdog]

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html#1

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”

Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.

[MechAg94]

wacki, they actually do line up.  You just have the temperature scale screwed down so small, you think you are seeing a trend.