Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » World Events » Africa » Its all about activating the guilt chip in the heads of the latte sippers

Its all about activating the guilt chip in the heads of the latte sippers

The guilt chip is clearly evident in this Latte sippers brain. It is the one that you can see right at the front.

Warministas love to counter the citation of extreme winter conditions (as proof that the world is not warming) with the suggestion that it is only “weather” and that “weather is not Climate“. Personally i have always thought that such a distinction is rather spurious. Spurious in the same way that saying that the millimetre marks on a tape measure are not a measurement in the same way that the metre marks are. It is all a matter of scale. Despite the Warministas denouncing any citation of any weather event that contradicts their argument they are still rather fond of citing weather events that fit with their own prognostications

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny – and ignored warnings from scientific advisers. The report’s author later withdrew the claim because the evidence was too weak.

The link was central to demands at last month’s Copenhagen climate summit by African nations for compensation of $US100 billion from the rich nations.

However, the IPCC knew in 2008 that the link could not be proved but did not alert world leaders, who have used weather extremes to bolster the case for action on climate change.

Kevin Rudd last November linked weather extremes to the debate over the government’s emissions trading scheme.

“We will feel the effects of climate change fastest and hardest, and therefore we must act this week, and the government will be doing everything possible to make sure that can occur,” the Prime Minister said at the time.

British Climate Change Minister Ed Miliband has suggested floods – such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 – could be linked to global warming.

US President Barack Obama said last year: “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.”

Last month British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told parliament that the financial agreement at Copenhagen “must address the great injustice that . . . those hit first and hardest by climate change are those that have done least harm”.

The IPCC has now been forced to reassess its report linking extreme weather to climate change.

There is a clear dissonance here between the “weather is not climate” mantra and the “weather events prove Global Warming is happening” rhetoric that we are getting from The likes Of Obama and Brother Number One and it is obvious to me that the rhetoric is intended to activate the guilt chips in the heads of the worlds progressives this enables the aforementioned leaders to bring about fundamental changes to our society by stealth. Changes to the energy economy and changes to the world’s political institutions. But then hasn’t that been the desire of religion since men began to draw pictures on the stone walls of their caves? Like the measuring tape I mentioned earlier it is all a matter of scale and finding the marks on the tape that fit the liturgy.
Oh yeah its also another reason to think that the UN in general and the IPCC in particular is as useless as titties on a bull.
Cheers Comrades
😉

Advertisements

51 Comments

  1. PKD says:

    Oh yeah its also another reason to think that the UN in general and the IPCC in particular is as useless as titties on a bull.

    And this post is about as meaningful as a pencil without lead. That is pointless.
    Really your denialism is getting very worn out.

    Why don’t you talk about the science of AGW for a change instead of the politics? Would you like to explain how the 10 warmest years on record have been in the last 13 years, given the sunspots have been low for the last few years and the PDO has been in a cooling phase????

    Wasn’t last year (from memory) the 2nd warmest on record?
    How did that happen Iain with your low sunspot count etc?
    Somehow I reckon you’ll decline and keep on spouting your usual political conspiracy theories…

  2. Iain Hall says:

    PKD

    Why don’t you talk about the science of AGW for a change instead of the politics?

    As I have said many times the actual “science” is irrelevant (apart from some academic interest) if the advocates for the notion of AGW can not get their solutions up politically. Further as you and JM are so keen to point out I am not a scientist so I play to my strength which is an understanding of politics.
    Now for nearly three years you have had an open invitation to write a Pro AGW science post and I am still waiting. So If you think that this blog is lacking a post about the science of AGW then you have the power to , as Jean luc would say, make it so.

  3. 1998 was the coolest year on record PKD. It’s been all downhill from there. 2008 was the coolest year of the century.

    These are the facts. Over the last 15 years there has been no statistically significant warming.

  4. Len says:

    Again with the sunspots. Geez !

    There is no, I repeat, NO ! proven accessible recorded data, to suggest the correlation. The sunspot count is often used to describe “Solar” weather, and everyone sees the word weather, and jumps on the bandwagon.

    Solar peaks and troughs have come and gone for eons. The last peak was about 2002, and we are currently in a trough. That is changing, as the first sunspots have been sighted, to indicate that the new cycle has begun.

    The paranoia regarding sunspots is becoming excessive, and damaging to scientist’s reputations. (if they had any to begin with). Wasn’t it a couple of months ago Iain, that you put an article up, re that scientist that bravely (or perhaps that should read stupidly), came out with the death defying comment that we were never to have any more sunspots ? Wonder where he is now ? Probably washing test tubes in the basement of some uni somewhere ?

    Leon

    1998 was the coolest year on record PKD. It’s been all downhill from there. 2008 was the coolest year of the century.

    Interesting fact Leon. Considering that 2002 was the peak of the last sunspot cycle, and in 2008 we were still in a deep solar minimum ? Lack of correlation here people ?

    Why don’t you talk about the science of AGW for a change instead of the politics?

    Iain can’t talk (at least with a straight face anyway?), about the science of AGW, because at the moment it is all crap. All rhetoric. All form, no substance.

    You should take everything you read with reticence. Data can be twisted to say nearly anything, surely we have seen the evidence of that over the last century ?

  5. JM says:

    Iain: “so I play to my strength which is an understanding of politics.”

    I really wish you would do that Iain. The science is (largely) determined, what’s really important is how we handle it.

    But you don’t do that – instead you roundly dispute (in turn) the reality of warming, whether we are responsible for it, whether it will have any serious effect, whether we can do anything about it, whether we can trust the scientists (who are apparently all crooks in your view).

    One thing you hardly ever do is discuss the politics.

  6. PKD says:

    Umm Len – I am actually against the sceptics sunspot theory too. You’ll find Iain is the big supporter of it here, not me…

  7. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    But you don’t do that – instead you roundly dispute (in turn) the reality of warming, whether we are responsible for it, whether it will have any serious effect, whether we can do anything about it, whether we can trust the scientists (who are apparently all crooks in your view).

    Look at my most recent posts on the subject JM and You will find that I have repeatedly admitted that I could be wrong to doubt all of the things that you cite here But It occurred to me about a year ago that the science is not the crux of the Warminista’s problems, the impossibility of achieving their “cure” is. Why even you told me only the other day that you doubt that the cure can be made to happen. With that reality in mind you have to admit who is right or wrong about the science becomes a moot point. I don’t resile from my doubts about the science though.

  8. JM says:

    Iain: “Why even you told me only the other day that you doubt that the cure can be made to happen. “

    I’m afraid you missed the irony – my comment was in the most restricted sense.

    I said that since convincing you was part of my all encompassing solution, that I doubted I could achieve it all – given the evidence of your responses.

    The rest of it – ie. without you, and your fellow denialists – I have to admit to believing is still achievable.

  9. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    So are you seriously telling me that you think that “the cure” can be made to happen at a global level for long enough for it to make a difference?
    Really truly?
    Because if you are then it must mean that you have been with Christine and her fluttering friends at the bottom of the garden 🙄

  10. Tessa Dick says:

    As I read this, I have been snowed in for a full week — highly unusual at the 4,800-foot elevation! My only complaint is that the stores are running out of cat food. The snow plows made a 6-foot berm across the front of my property, so I’ve been climbing over it to get into town. No point in digging out a path, as more snow is coming tonight or tomorrow.

    “GRACE has only been orbiting Earth for three and a half years, not long enough to determine if the increase in melting is due to global warming or natural variability, the University of Texas’s Chen says.
    Longer term trends, and confidence in data interpretation, must wait until several more years of data are collected, he says.”
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-greenland_2.html

    ~~~

  11. Iain Hall says:

    Well how many of the northern winters have been more severe than usual in the last decade is the question that comes to my mind Tessa. At least the last few by my back of a napkin reckoning. Which sort of undermines the claims from the Warministas that this has been the ‘hottest on record”

    But your link does point out the problem for the Warminiata argument, namely the detailed data that we can collect now does not cover enough time to definitively prove anything about what has happened in the past.
    Anyway I hope you manage to get in enough supplies before the weather closes in again.

  12. Tessa Dick says:

    thanx, Iain! we’re battening down the hatches for the fifth snow storm in about a week
    — I stocked up on cat food and dog food
    — the cats have cabin fever
    ~~~

  13. PKD says:

    But your link does point out the problem for the Warminiata argument, namely the detailed data that we can collect now does not cover enough time to definitively prove anything about what has happened in the past.

    Of course, because we have no meaningful data at all about climate before satellites went up… 😐

  14. JM says:

    Tessa, Iain you’re forgetting about all the other data we have. Like circa 400 years of measurements taken with thermometers.

    Or do you insist we willfully blind ourselves?

  15. PKD says:

    Yes thats kind of what I was getting at.

    Just to add, Iain hates acknowledging the existence of pre-satellite data as being any good, yet still insists on believing in the existence and extent of the MWP in order to try and deny the current climate change as being anything other than natural.

    And what data do we have about the MWP?
    Why the same proxy data Iain rubbishes of course! 🙂

  16. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    YOu are forgetting that in geological terms 400 years is nothing! and when it come to climate you have to look at far longer time scales than that (as you have told me often enough I am sure) The reality is that the further you go back the less fulsome are the data sets until you get into using proxies which is a can of worms of an altogether greater magnitude.

  17. JM says:

    Iain. Here’s the bottom line. You are a denialist. I’m not starting another round of debate on something we’ve boiled the ocean on.

    In the face of overwhelming evidence you twist, turn and obfuscate like a small child avoiding bedtime.

    Grown ups recognize problems and deal with them.

  18. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain. Here’s the bottom line. You are a denialist. I’m not starting another round of debate on something we’ve boiled the ocean on.

    If anyone is in denial it just has to be you, You deny that there is any problem with The IPCC, You deny that there is a problem with Paleo-climate data(especially if you want to compare those data sets with what we can measure now, You deny the impossibility of your cure ever being achieved, You deny the futility of ETS and finally you deny the importance of adaptation.

    In the face of overwhelming evidence you twist, turn and obfuscate like a small child avoiding bedtime.

    I blog for fun JM and were the evidence as “overwhelming” as you claim then I would be convinced But your problem is that you have no answer to the recent scandals and revelations about the way the science has been “sexed up” by the IPCC you are the one who is trying very hard not answer my question about how possible the cure you advocate for actually is.

    Grown ups recognize problems and deal with them.

    Well then you should try and deal with the problems of your own argument then

  19. JM says:

    Iain, who shot Kennedy? All you’ve got is a conspiracy theory

    What would it take for you be convinced? (That’s a serious question)

    Because I don’t think you know.

  20. Len says:

    In the face of overwhelming evidence you twist, turn and obfuscate like a small child avoiding bedtime

    Where is this overwhelming evidence JM ?
    I collect the data, for a living, and as mentioned previously, have spent near on the last twenty years doing so. I have invested over $100m of the banks money, in doing the ground science, and loading up the latest and greatest whizz bang gear to do it.

    Even after that period of time, not one of the egg heads in your corner, has come up with ONE explanation as to a definitive cause, of what is happening, other than to say, that we are stuffing up the planet. Hardly need a billion dollar industry to tell us that little piece of logical deduction ?
    The science of AGW is currently being run by glory hounds, and ALL conclusions, coming from that little frat party, should be treated with all the scepticism, it deserves !

    Even though relatively new to blogging, and after watching these pages for just under a year, and seeing all the arguments back and forth, during that time, and even working directly in the industry, there is one fact, proven time and time again, that comes to mind.

    Why haven’t we seen any total scientific consensus yet ? Kyoto would have to be a classic example of that surely ? We won’t either. The science is new, the equipment used, is also just as new. We won’t hear anything until that science is refined, proven, and practiced, as well as accepted by all. That includes true believers, as well as skeptics such as myself. Sorry, but I don’t see it yet. The studies that I have been told to undertake, even over the last year, have made the whole argument even more jaded, and unfounded. Unfortunately, the answer is time, perhaps time we don’t have ?

  21. JM says:

    Len, not one of the egg heads in your corner, has come up with ONE explanation as to a definitive cause, of what is happening,

    Rot. I have. Many have. Increased CO2.

    In. The Atmosphere. Of. A. Planet. Will. Warm. That. Planet.

    Period. There is no argument.

    The data you collect is solely concerned with the question:- for a given increase in CO2 how much increase in temperature will we see on this planet?

    Current measurement (from the data people like you gather):- about 3C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. (This is called “climate sensitivity” – have a look at the wiki page)

  22. Iain Hall says:

    The evidence is that Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy JM
    But the trouble for you is that the evidence for AGW is very much more sketchy and subject to much more speculation than we could see in the Warren commission report.
    In actual fact I have very little time for any kind of conspiracy theory, be it about the assassination of JFK , the destruction of the two towers,or AGW science. I just don’t think that the “evidence” thus far presented is substantial enough to definitively prove a causal link with anthropogenic CO2 and the perceived “warming trend” in the climate.
    You cite “climate sensitivity” in your response to Len as if this is something that is solid and undisputed but if you read enough about it you find that this is based not upon irrefutable scientific fact but assumption and theory.
    I am very passionate about protecting the environment JM and I would happily see just a small proportion of the AGW spend focused on addressing the deforestation of south Asia or the Amazon I want to see more efficient ways of using our finite resources hence my piece about a streamlined motorcycle that gets great mileage. But more than anything I want to see practical solutions to our problems. The Warministas like yourself keep coming up with “Solutions” that are just not feasible, will cost shit loads of treasure and give no results (even if you are right about the science). That is why I am a sceptic so to answer your question directly what it would take for me to be convinced (of AGW) is an irrefutable proof of the causal link between Co2 and the claimed rise in the global temperature and frankly I have yet to see it. Heck there is even substantial dispute about exactly what the state of play actually is when it comes to the climate now.

  23. Len says:

    increased Co2 huh ? Wow, look Iain. Co2 is the cause of the problem. We are all saved ?

    Sarcasm aside, hmm, bit of a no brainer that one. Co2 is not the definitive cause of agw. It is a contributer. I can use the analogy of the relationship of co2 and gw, and cigarettes and all cancer. That theory has holes in it, so large, that you could steer the Titanic through it.

    Co2 may constitute a major part of the cause of global warming, but the idiots at the top, fighting over the new ceilings for co2, are forgetting the reasons why those levels got there in the first place. We have seen this many times on this site, and Iain mentions it again above. The massive deforestation of this planet is a major source of the co2 levels on the planet. The countries that are involved in this savagry will not stop, until every last tree is chopped down, and sold for wood chips. They are desperate for money, and can’t see past the nose on their ugly little faces, that this greed needs to be sustained with a little bit of patience. They won’t though. That is where I would be venting my anger and attention. You want to make a difference, look up at everything countries like Indonesia make and sell, and boycott the bloody lot. Same with countries surrounding/raping the Amazon.

  24. Iain Hall says:

    Perhaps JM should Pay heed to this in today’s Oz Len:

    THE impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the British government’s chief scientific adviser.

    John Beddington said climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.

    Australia’s chief scientist, Penny Sackett, told The Australian last night she shared Professor Beddington’s concerns.

    Professor Sackett said climate change was a scientific reality but there was a need for absolute openness and rigour in the presentation of evidence, including recognition of which aspects of climate change science were imprecise and required further research.

    Professor Beddington said public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly disputed issues.

    He said: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”

    He said the false claim in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 had exposed a wider problem with the way some evidence was presented.

    “Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There’s definitely an issue there. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be the level of scepticism.

    “All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, `There’s a level of uncertainty about that’.”

    Professor Beddington said particular caution was needed when communicating predictions about climate change made with the help of computer models. “It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change.

    “When you get into large-scale climate modelling, there are quite substantial uncertainties. On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.”

    He said it was wrong for scientists to refuse to disclose their data to their critics: “I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.”

    He added: “There is a danger that people can manipulate the data, but the benefits from being open far outweigh that danger.”

  25. Len says:

    Can’t argue with any of that….

  26. PKD says:

    The massive deforestation of this planet is a major source of the co2 levels on the planet.

    As far as I know Len, most of the made made CO2 emissions come from burning of the ground stored fossil fuels – coal and oil. Deforestation is a source that we should be looking at putting the brakes on too, but its a smaller contributing source compared to coal and oil burning…

  27. PKD says:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/hot-days-outnumbering-cold-ones/story-fn3dxity-1225824418174

    Gosh – what a surprise Iain.
    But I am sure this scientist is fiddling the data to support warming. They all are – unless they are sceptical scientists of course…

  28. Len says:

    I don’t agree.
    Deforestation, as far as I understand, contributes to the co2 debate on many fronts.

    1. By releasing the co2 trapped by the trees, when they are destroyed/milled.
    2. By killing trees, that would have trapped existing, and future levels of co2.

    Then the big
    3. By burning off the excess once trees have been cut down.

    Ceasing the ravaging of our forests is not just for existing levels of pollutants. Trees absorb co2, and release o2 as a byproduct of their growth process. That is the most important thing here, that people forget. You keep raping forests at the existing rate, where is the future absorbtion of co2, and release of new o2 going to come from ?

    If the systematic cutting down of our forests slows, or even ceases, it gives the planet breathing room, so it/we can clean up our act in other areas.

  29. Iain Hall says:

    The globe has been warming for the past 300 years and so it is not surprising that the recent decade is probably warmer than anything else we have experienced in the last century,” he said.

    “We don’t understand the climate system that well, and there are a lot of unknowns about what is causing these variations from year to year. In the last decade temperatures haven’t really risen very much.
    “It’s not as if, as carbon dioxide increases, temperatures have systematically increased as well.”

    Engineer and climate modeller David Evans yesterday blamed an “urban heat island” effect on thermometers, as well as the location of many thermometers at airports, for the higher temperature data.

    He also claimed that the weather bureau’s unadjusted raw data showed a cooling trend of temperatures. “It’s pretty clear that global warming is not predominantly due to carbon dioxide,” Dr Evans said. But National Climate Centre climatologist Blair Trewin said yesterday that the latest data indicated that long-term warming was probably the result of increased carbon emissions.

    “It’s pretty solid evidence that warming trends that we have seen over the last century globally are consistent with what we would expect given the change that has happened in the atmosphere,” Dr Trewin said.

    From here

    one thing that is clear is that the raw data is open to rather wide interpretation and the debate is far from over PKD

  30. Iain Hall says:

    PKD

    even more skullduggery from the IPCC

    Bob Ward, policy director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said the row over natural disasters is neither a blunder or a new criticism of the report. He said the row is the result of criticisms that date back to 2006 that are being raked over because the IPCC’s procedures for reviewing scientific work is currently under the spotlight.

    The controversy centres on why the cost of repairs after hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters, has risen from $75.5bn in the 1960s to $659.9bn in the 1990s. Much of the increase is because economic growth has given people more to lose, but some could be due to more destructive natural disasters as the Earth warms. The infrequency of natural disasters coupled with the short period of data also means that a small number of events in a rich region of the world could have a large impact on the figures.

  31. PKD says:

    Engineer and climate modeller David Evans yesterday blamed an “urban heat island” effect on thermometers, as well as the location of many thermometers at airports, for the higher temperature data.

    aah yes, the old ‘urban island heat effect’ hokum. Thats been well and truly debunked you know…

  32. PKD says:

    Len,
    Agree with your points 1,2 and 3 but none of those change the fact that there is far more CO2 locked up in coal and oil reserves than there is in the trees. Hence burning all the oil and coal (well until it becomes commercially unviable) will release much more CO2 than burning all the trees – well until that becomes commerically unviable!

  33. Len says:

    We all know that the composition of coal is carbon, carbon dioxide etc, but I don’t agree with your source of this co2.
    Coal is also classified as a fossil. i.e. dead trees, forest floor matter etc, compressed over thousands of years, to become finally, coal. Where would have come the massive co2 concentration in ancient times ? We have historically, the ice age, and little else is known, as yet, about other factors, that possibly may have caused this massive concentration. The release of this co2 could be a part of the problem, but not the total.

    My main point here, regarding the deforestation of the planet, is pretty simple. I detest the widespread practice of cutting down our planet’s oxygen factories, but what is worse, that if we do have to cut them down, why aren’t we massively planting new forests in their place, or in other places to compensate ? You wanna know why ? Bloody money. These companies pay bugger all for the right to cut down all this timber, pay bugger all for the clean up afterwards, and think that putting on a couple of radio ads to say how much they are caring for these areas, that they are covering their butts. Just imagine, if they were locked out of the forests (which is what they are afraid of !), or better still, made to pay commercial rates for the raw lumber they are getting for next to nothing, the timber industry would be dead over night.

    I am not a rampaging greenie, but I am for balance. There are so many lies, from both sides, that the normal Joe, has no idea what side to believe, and that is what BOTH sides are depending on, in the battle of the media.

  34. PKD says:

    Yes I agree with you about the deforestation of trees…but I am lost as to what point you are trying to make about coal.

    Coal (and oil) consists of dead trees which contain carbon that were fossilised.
    Fossilisation happened many, many times over millions years, trapping more trees and more CO2in trees than exists at one time above ground.

    Ergo more CO2 is in the coal and oil underground than in the trees being deforested…at least thats how I remember it from my Geograhpy / Geology studies. Too bad we don’t have Canada’s pre-eminent Geologist Shawn Whelan on here any more to confirm that. Or to just make it up out of his bottom! 🙂

  35. Len says:

    I guess what I am trying to say is, that this co2, has been trapped underground, for thousands, even millions of years, what damage has it caused in the interim ? I can’t see it ?

    The coal would have been buried, for that long period of time, and yet, the argument surrounding it, only happens in the last couple of decades. What was it’s source ? What caused the massive underground storage of carbon ? Right back to when the planet was created volcanically ?

    There, again, are many factors as to what is happening now. It is a culmination of many things. What I am saying, is that until a more successful intervention is available, the mass planting of forests, to off set this increase in co2 is all we can do in the interim. By banning logging, sh*t, thought that would be a natural first step ? Hence the attempt to introduce a carbon trading scheme I guess ? Love the thought, going to be a nightmare, and impossible in practice, and to police ?

    The information/data that these decisions should have been based on, is not being correlated, and in most cases, even ignored. Judgments are being made, by people with vested interests, and these groups, with so much to lose, those decisions are being directed by emotion, and financial costs, rather than common sense, and planetary need ?

  36. JM says:

    Actually just to add to PKD’s point here Len, we can actually tell where all that extra CO2 comes from by “carbon dating” it – ie. whether it’s from coal or deforestation.

    CO2 from a dead tree contains C14 in small amounts which decays with a half life of about 5000 years. CO2 from coal and petrol contains virtually no C14 at all, it’s all C12 because all the radioactive C14 has decayed over millions of years.

    If we look at the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere we find that all the additional stuff – ie. that coming from whatever change is happening in the environment and not stable natural processes – is C12. All of it (pretty much). So it’s all old, very old. The only significant source of old carbon is fossil fuel.

    Deforestation plays a role, but not a big one.

    (Don’t worry Iain, I’ll get back to you. I’ve been otherwise engaged for the past couple of days.)

  37. JM says:

    Canada’s pre-eminent Geologist Shawn Whelan

    And Michigan’s premier automobile engineer! Don’t forget that PKD.

  38. JM says:

    Len: what damage has it caused in the interim ?

    It hasn’t been in the atmosphere, not until we burnt it. That’s when it started to cause damage.

  39. Len says:

    Hang on guys, you are talking about the damage that it is doing in the atmosphere. The coal has been buried for thousands of years. How did it get there ? What damage did it do, before it was buried ? Burning it off now, sure, all that crap in the atmosphere, no denying that. BUT, what damage was done to the timber, to turn it into a matter that thousands of years down the track, would turn it into coal ?

    You can’t blame all of our woes on burning coal guys. It’s just one on a many long list. Same as reforestation of the planet will be the panacea that will cure all either. What reforestation will do, is allow the planet time to heal. Time for these wankers in the white coats, to get their heads together, and finally agree on a list of viable, practical solutions.

  40. JM says:

    Iain

    You ask for irrefutable proof?

    Let’s take this in stages.

    1. Irrefutable proof that CO2 absorbs infra-red

    Refer all of 20th C radiative physics for the theory (and all of 19th C physics for the thermodynamic effects). But if you want an experiment, take a sealed glass tank and fill it with an oxygen/nitrogen mix. Shine a infrared heat lamp on it until the temperature stabilizes. Measure the temperature.

    Add more oxygen. No change in temperature.

    Add more nitrogen. No change in temperature.

    Now introduce some CO2 and measure the temperature as you inject more – letting it take a little time to settle down between injections.

    It will get warmer as the CO2 increases.

    That’s your causal link satisfied. There is a physical cause, easily demonstrated.

    (I think we can take this step as given. The experiment has been done and no-one has any doubt about this. At all. If it ain’t true, then atomic bombs and computers wouldn’t work because the effect is at the heart of all atomic and quantum physics – as well as modern chemistry.

    Nobody in their right mind would try to refute this one – well
    maybe Iain would so if he does we’ll have to accept that one
    person in their right mind would make the attempt.)

    Case closed on CO2 as a mechanism.

    2. Irrefutable proof that CO2 in the atmosphere of a planet will increase the surface temperature of that planet.

    (This section relies on this paper by Arthur Smith at NOAA which puts the whole CO2/Greenhouse Effect/Global Warming argument in one place. He put it together to consolidate all the common knowledge of over a century of science, precisely to answer questions like Iain’s.)

    Venus. Without an atmosphere the surface temperature of Venus would be 232K (or about -40C).

    But Venus has a thick atmosphere of pretty much 100% CO2. It’s surface temperature is actually 737K (about 464C) – hot enough to vaporize water and possibly melt lead.

    But it’s closer to the sun, I hear you cry! Well Mercury is closer still and the (sunside) surface temperature there is only 427C. Mercury has no atmosphere to warm it any more than that.

    Case close on CO2 warming planets.

    3. Irrefutable proof that CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere has increased over the 20th Century

    Refer measurements at Muana Loa here

    (There are similar measurements taken at Cape Grim in Tasmania and somewhere in Alaska – they show the same trends).

    A steady increase since measurements began in 1960 of about 3ppm per year. A little seasonal fluctuation, but up and accelerating a little in a nice gentle upwards curve.

    Case closed on CO2 increase in the earth’s atmosphere.

    4. Irrefutable proof that the earth’s temperature has risen over the 20th Century

    GISS here, Hadley here, lots of other stuff elsewhere.

    Case closed on a warming earth.

    And case closed on CO2 induced global warming. Increase CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere and the earth’s temperature rises.

    But the next step is “Did we cause it?”

    5. Irrefutable proof that fossil fuel burning is to blame.

    Short answer: carbon dating.

    Slightly longer answer. Carbon dating works by looking at two carbon isotopes C12 and C14 (which is slightly radioactive and decays with a half life of about 5000 years).

    But the take away in the AGW case is this:-
    – when a tree is chopped down and burned some of the CO2 is C14
    – when petrol or coal is burned all of the CO2 is C12

    That means if you look at the proportions of the C12 and C14 in the atmosphere you can see how much is due to fossil fuel burning.

    Answer: all of it. All of the additional CO2 is C12 (ie. old) not C14 (ie. new)

    Case closed. The earth is warming and we are to blame through the burning of fossil fuels in the 20th Century.

    Summary
    1. CO2 absorbs infra-red
    2. CO2 in a planets atmosphere warms the planet
    3. CO2 has increased on the earth during the 20th Century
    4. Temperature has increased on the earth during the 20th Century
    5. All the extra CO2 comes from burning old carbon.

    Start refuting Iain. Knock yourself out.

  41. JM says:

    Len that’s a reasonable question. Two points.

    1. (minor quibble) The coal/oil has been there for millions of years, not thousands.

    2. The damage that was done to it was that it died. The carbon ended up in the ground, not the air.

    The carbon only gets into the air when we burn the coal/oil. Just like when we cut down trees the carbon ends up in the ground unless we burn the wood.

    By burning coal instead of trees we’re releasing the carbon from 10’s of millions of years of dead trees into the atmosphere in just a few decades.

    Without us it would have stayed in the ground.

  42. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Firstly i don’t have a lot of time this morning because I have to go and install the staircase that I have made but i will give you a quick response By way of a few queries:

    1. Irrefutable proof that CO2 absorbs infra-red

    Refer all of 20th C radiative physics for the theory (and all of 19th C physics for the thermodynamic effects). But if you want an experiment, take a sealed glass tank and fill it with an oxygen/nitrogen mix. Shine a infrared heat lamp on it until the temperature stabilizes. Measure the temperature.

    Add more oxygen. No change in temperature.

    Add more nitrogen. No change in temperature.

    Now introduce some CO2 and measure the temperature as you inject more – letting it take a little time to settle down between injections.

    It will get warmer as the CO2 increases.

    That’s your causal link satisfied. There is a physical cause, easily demonstrated.
    (I think we can take this step as given. The experiment has been done and no-one has any doubt about this. At all. If it ain’t true, then atomic bombs and computers wouldn’t work because the effect is at the heart of all atomic and quantum physics – as well as modern chemistry.

    Nobody in their right mind would try to refute this one – well
    maybe Iain would so if he does we’ll have to accept that one
    person in their right mind would make the attempt.)

    Case closed on CO2 as a mechanism.

    Ho Hum I have never denied (there is that word 😉 ) that Co2 does this in this circumstance but just how much Co2 was added to your magic box? how many parts per million were added? If I recall correctly from the last time that this experiment was cited the concentration was of Co2 was raised to something like 30% before there was a measurable difference in temperature

    2. Irrefutable proof that CO2 in the atmosphere of a planet will increase the surface temperature of that planet.

    Venus. Without an atmosphere the surface temperature of Venus would be 232K (or about -40C).

    But Venus has a thick atmosphere of pretty much 100% CO2. It’s surface temperature is actually 737K (about 464C) – hot enough to vaporize water and possibly melt lead.

    But it’s closer to the sun, I hear you cry! Well Mercury is closer still and the (sunside) surface temperature there is only 427C. Mercury has no atmosphere to warm it any more than that.

    Case close on CO2 warming planets.

    The atmosphere of Venus is many times more dense than than our own

    The atmosphere of Venus is made up mainly of carbon dioxide, and thick clouds of sulfuric acid completely cover the planet. The atmosphere traps the small amount of energy from the sun that does reach the surface along with the heat the planet itself releases. This greenhouse effect has made the surface and lower atmosphere of Venus one of the hottest places in the solar system! If you were on the surface of the planet, the air above you would be about 90 times heavier than the Earth’s atmosphere. This is like what a submarine experiences at 3000 ft below the surface of the Earth’s ocean. The atmosphere is composed mainly of carbon dioxide (96%), 3.5% nitrogen, and less than 1% is made up of carbon monoxide, argon, sulfur dioxide, and water vapor.

    I don’t deny the reality of the surface temperature of Venus But I would suggest that it is the atmospheric density that makes your analogy false.

    3. Irrefutable proof that CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere has increased over the 20th Century

    Refer measurements at Muana Loa here

    (There are similar measurements taken at Cape Grim in Tasmania and somewhere in Alaska – they show the same trends).

    A steady increase since measurements began in 1960 of about 3ppm per year. A little seasonal fluctuation, but up and accelerating a little in a nice gentle upwards curve.

    Case closed on CO2 increase in the earth’s atmosphere.

    Have I ever disputed this? No I haven’t!

    4. Irrefutable proof that the earth’s temperature has risen over the 20th Century

    GISS here, Hadley here, lots of other stuff elsewhere.

    Case closed on a warming earth.

    Really? Have I ever denied this? the majority of may criticism of the temperature record relates to the paucity of data before the current era, quite simply if you are claiming a long time warming trend just what are you comparing today’s figures to? The longer the time period that you try consider the poorer the data for comparison becomes. It gets to the stage where you are comparing fly specks of hard data from the past to more substantial stuff from the present and once you add in the very large margin of error you end up with what is essentially speculation.

    And case closed on CO2 induced global warming. Increase CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere and the earth’s temperature rises.

    Well your problem is that our atmosphere is not in a closed box and the gasses you mention are not the only players, it simply does not easily lend its self to such simplistic modelling now does it? What about the dynamics of our Oceans and water vapour in the air? Also you ignore the biological cycles of the gases,plant absorption of CO2 and their grown changes with its concentration……..

    Out of time now catch you later on the rest
    Cheers
    iain

  43. JM says:

    “Out of time now catch you later on the rest”

    I don’t believe it. You’re actually going to try!?!?!?

    Iain I respect you, so I’ll wait for you to complete your rebuttal before responding.

    I’m going out for popcorn.

  44. Iain Hall says:

    Response continued JM and I only have about twenty minuites 🙄

    Case close on CO2 warming planets.

    yeah if your planet has an atmosphere that is 90 times the density of ours and 96% Co2 things become somewhat less cut and dried when you have a more complex dynamic at substantially less density

    3. Irrefutable proof that CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere has increased over the 20th Century

    As I said in part one of may response I don’t doubt the measurements, but what I do doubt is your claims about the climate sensitivity to it, what precisely to you claim is its sensitivity and why do you think that it is so?

    4. Irrefutable proof that the earth’s temperature has risen over the 20th Century

    Yes but the measured temperature rises are not out side natural variability according to the instrumental record now are they?

    Case closed on a warming earth.

    No that is your problem, interpreting what we can measure and how we explain the changes is open to a great deal of debate , on which the Jury is still undecided.

    And case closed on CO2 induced global warming. Increase CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere and the earth’s temperature rises.

    For all of your claims that the planet is warming the northern winter over the last decade or so has been exceptionally cold and severe……..

    But the next step is “Did we cause it?”

    5. Irrefutable proof that fossil fuel burning is to blame.

    Short answer: carbon dating.

    Case closed. The earth is warming and we are to blame through the burning of fossil fuels in the 20th Century.

    Quite a few big assumptions in your case JM any one of which if wrong destroy your argument that “the warming” is caused by burning fossil fuel

    S

    Summary
    1. CO2 absorbs infra-red

    Sure but at the concentrations we are talking about is it really enough to do what you claim?

    2. CO2 in a planets atmosphere warms the planet

    Sure but at the concentrations we are talking about is it really enough to do what you claim?

    3. CO2 has increased on the earth during the 20th Century

    Sure but at the concentrations we are talking about is it really enough to do what you claim?

    4. Temperature has increased on the earth during the 20th Century

    Not by much and that increase is well with in natural variability

    5. All the extra CO2 comes from burning old carbon.

    Does it really? at least some of it comes from volcanic activity.

    Now before you start to sing about how wrong I am about the science perhaps you should finally answer my question form the previous thread about how possible it will be to get your mitigation scheme up and running for long enough to make a difference. I suspect that you actually know that if you admit the futility of your cure (because it can’t be done) then you are up that creek without a paddle.

  45. JM says:

    Iain: Now before you start to sing about how wrong I am about the science

    I’ll accept that as a concession that your quibbles and unjustified doubts don’t amount to a refutation.

    you should finally answer my question form the previous thread about how possible it will be to get your mitigation scheme up and running for long enough to make a difference.

    Why not? We changed the economy of the 19th C (which was driven by horses and horseshit) to the economy of the 20th C driven by petrol and CO2.

    What makes you think we can’t do it again?

  46. Len says:

    Greed !

  47. Iain Hall says:

    JM that does not answer my question, do you think it is possible or not?
    Oh and I concede nothing here BTW

  48. PKD says:

    And Michigan’s premier automobile engineer! Don’t forget that PKD.

    Heh I had forgotten that one. In fact the power of Google shos that Whelan never posted anywhere else during or since his time educating us with his scientific knowledge.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if he was a sock puppet that outlived its usefulness.

    Speaking of which, where is Sock Puppet these days Iain???

  49. PKD says:

    Oh and I concede nothing here BTW

    Thats why it’s called denial Iain..! 🙂

  50. PKD says:

    For all of your claims that the planet is warming the northern winter over the last decade or so has been exceptionally cold and severe……..

    No they haven’t Iain. Can you prove it…somehow I suspect you ca’t and your just Monckton’d that claim up out of thin air…

  51. PKD says:

    “can’t” not “ca’t” – lol

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: