BBC BLOGS - Richard Black's Earth Watch
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

Bonn voyage for Copenhagen bus

Richard Black | 09:00 UK time, Thursday, 8 April 2010

The battered old charabanc of the UN climate convention (UNFCCC) splutters back into life this week for a quick three-day outing to Bonn.

Sheep cross the parched ground of the Kouris reservoir, Cyprus, during the 2007 drought

But how it runs during the course of the year, and where its final destination lies, are issues that the drivers and passengers have yet to decide.

It appears that they're not all trying to get to the same place; also, that where some perceive a mud-splattered Rolls-Royce that can still be restored to its proper glories, others see only a broken down rustbucket that they'll pull on one last journey to the knackers yard.

OK, enough of the motoring analogies else I shall go off the road completely.

In plain English - ahem - what we have, in the form of the 11th session of the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol and the ninth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, is a short sharp meeting that will largely focus on where the two parallel tracks of climate negotiations that made little headway at December's UN climate summit in Copenhagen are going this year.

(If you're unsure why there are two parallel tracks, I tried to make sense of it in the third segment of this post.)

UN climate summit in CopenhagenThe main thing that's happened since the summit is that governments have been telling the UN climate convention secretariat what they intend to do about the Copenhagen Accord, the document that emerged on the conference's fraught final day.

Most nations have sent something to the UNFCCC - 123 when I counted on Wednesday afternoon, although more were being added, so the total might be a bit higher by the time you read this.

What's more, I've read through them all (don't ever say I don't go the extra mile for you.)

The vast majority endorse the accord - they "associate themselves" with it - but not all.

Ecuador, Nauru, Kuwait and the Cook Islands are among those that do not; meanwhile, countries that voiced the most opposition on that final Copenhagen morning - Bolivia, Cuba, Venezuela - have not sent in anything, so it's fair to assume they don't want to associate either.

Neither has Saudi Arabia, the most influential of the oil-rich Gulf States.

The most eloquent and detailed critique comes from Nauru [pdf link]. I suggest you read the whole thing if you have time, but the essential points are that the accord doesn't do enough to prevent "dangerous" climate change, it's not an official UN agreement, and things coming out of it (for example a new fund for developing countries) cannot therefore have UN status.

It's very clear, therefore, that there is no consensus across nations on whether this accord is useful tool or a worse-than-useless distraction.

Among the majority that have endorsed it, there are some interesting lines to be pulled out.

A number of developing countries are explicit that it's just a political agreement, a helping hand on the road to a legally-binding international treaty. Some endorse the accord only on the condition that it leads to such an outcome this year.

China - widely regarded as the single most important driving force behind the accord - is the most explicit in laying out its view [pdf link] that industrialised nations still have to fulfil pledges made in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and in Bali 15 years later to take the lead by making deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and in providing financial aid to help developing countries do the same.

There are splits within some long-established groups.

Within the Gulf states, for example, Kuwait is against it whereas the UAE endorses it.

Small island states - among the first to be materially affected if projections of sea-level rise come to pass - are also divided, with - for example - the Cook Islands opposing and the Marshall Islands associating.

The US submission is also worth a look.

During the Copenhagen summit, President Obama said:

"I'm confident that America will fulfil the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17% by 2020...in line with final legislation."

But the commitment submitted to the UNFCCC [pdf link] reads:

"In the range of 17%, in conformity with anticipated US energy and climate legislation, recognizing that the final target will be reported to the Secretariat in light of enacted legislation."

You can argue that there is no difference between the two. You can also argue that there is a crucial change of nuance - the introduction of the term "anticipated" legislation, with the final target explicitly dependant on how that legislation might finally look.

What, then, if legislation doesn't happen at all - a distinct possibility?

You can bet that China and India and the other major developing powers will be watching the space between "anticipated" and "commitment" very, very closely.

So what will come out of the three days of talks in Bonn?

No major news, in all probability. But perhaps, an indication of whether the process can make any meaningful progress this year.

Last week, the UK indicated a possible concession [pdf link] to developing countries, saying it...

"...would be prepared, as part of the EU, to commit to an appropriately designed second Commitment Period under the Kyoto Protocol, provided that countries which currently do not have commitments under the Protocol agree on a satisfactory legally-binding agreement which could operate in parallel".

(You'll recall that reluctance of the EU and other developed world blocs to agree further emissions reductions under the Kyoto Protocol was a major issue leading up to and during Copenhagen.)

If this indicates a more general willingness on the part of developed nations to live up to the letter of their historical commitments, it could be an important move, breaking down one of the barriers that kept rich and poor apart during the course of last year.

But it wasn't the only roadblock that prevented negotiations reaching an international climate treaty last year, and it isn't the only one that exists now.

We'll see how the beaten-up old bus looks after its three-day outing, and whether there's enough juice in its tanks to jump over, or drive round, a few of these other obstacles on the long journey to Cancun, Mexico, at the end of the year.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 10:07am on 08 Apr 2010, Vic Smith wrote:

    Some senior, and very influential, members of the climate-change community have been careful to point out that the conclusions reached by researchers in this field must be treated with great caution.

    The reasons that they give for this include;

    The data that they use are, by their very nature, highly unreliable.

    The ideas that guide their deliberations cannot be tested against the real world, and therefore are not "scientific theories".

    The climate models that they use have no predictive abilities.


    If they have taken care to inform the public of this, then it seems reasonable to assume that the same caveats were expressed to their political masters.


    However, the political Establishment is still insisting that the science is sound and carries a very high level of certainty. Claims that the evidence is "overwhelming" or that theories are "tested and tested again" goes against the advice that politicians, almost certainly, were given.

    There has been a recent shift in the position of many advocates of man-made global warming. They stress that no science can be 100% certain. They remind us that climate models are useful tools to help researchers develop their ideas, but are far too crude to be used to predict future changes in the climate. It is to their credit that they have considered matters and now take a less extreme stance. Unfortunately, they will not be responsible for making trillion dollar decisions based on climate predictions.


    The political Establishment still holds the simplistic view that was fashionable a few months ago.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8568377.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 10:25am on 08 Apr 2010, Menedemus wrote:

    This piece mentions the fact that this "charabanc" of the UN climate convention (UNFCCC)is going to happen in Bonn.

    Yet another massive get-together with people travelling from all over the world to discuss global warming and yet pour carbon into the atmosphere getting there as well as producing all the hot air that these rounds of neverending climate meetings generate.

    Nice work if you can get it.

    I wonder who pays for this "charabanc"? Oh that's right Governments contribute ..... but the governments are just spending other people's money - as ever - for these types of jollies!

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 10:29am on 08 Apr 2010, Flatearther wrote:

    What a complete waste of time and money when man-made climate change is now conclusively a scam. Climate change is a natural occurrence and has always been so. When will you get off the fraudulent climate change band-wagon?

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 11:01am on 08 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    regardles of my (blatantly obvious) stance on this issue i do fail to see the point of yet more 'targets and agreements' when, as china rightly points out, we haven't even met the last lot yet.

    If 'they' were really serious about this they'd scrap the lot (including any kyoto remenants) and start with a new, simpler 'system'.

    As i've said countless times, it is entirely sensible to reduce ALL emmissions, but unfortunatley politics got involved....

    Also, when the dickens are we going to address the rapidly multiplying elephant in the room; population?

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 11:01am on 08 Apr 2010, bigsammyb wrote:

    Until the UNFCCC publically states what it intends to do about population growth internationally i will not take anything they say seriously.

    It is pure propoganda which aims to keep people in their place by reducing there ability to move freely and has nothing to do with saving the planet.

    If they wanted to save the planet then they would work to reduce the world population which is the leading cause of climate change.

    How much carbon i burn is irrelevant what is important is HOW MANY people burn carbon collectivly.

    ie: if the UK became 100% carbon free tommorow any benefit would be wiped out within two years by increases in population in china.

    So reducing the carbon is stupid and its increases are merely symptoms of the real problem which is overpopulation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 11:20am on 08 Apr 2010, jazbo wrote:

    I see my plea for not using such ludicrous images went un-noticed. Cracked earth and a wandering herd. They must be about to die through catastrophic climate change.

    That is the message you want us to take from that photo right?

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 11:21am on 08 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Classic Groupthink (summarising Irving janis) explains the agw delusions..

    Recognises the symptoms/results in the IPCC/CRU/Media/Polticians with respect to catastrophic, unprecented man made global warming below?

    Symptoms of groupthink:

    Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.

    Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

    Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.

    Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”.

    Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.

    Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

    Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

    Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

    Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking

    Incomplete survey of alternatives

    Incomplete survey of objectives

    Failure to examine risks of preferred choice

    Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives

    Poor information search

    Selection bias in collecting information

    Failure to work out contingency plans.

    The UK bank Northern Rock, before its nationalisation, is thought to be a recent major example of groupthink. In such real-world examples, a number of the above groupthink symptoms were displayed.

    Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking.

    with respect to Catastrophic, Unprecedented Man Made Global (agw theory) the IPCC/Cru/media/politicians, etc would seem to HAVE ALL THE SYMPTOMS of groupthink.

    Look at where the credit crunch crisis got us, when it finally crashed and burned, that only had a few of the symptoms.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 11:24am on 08 Apr 2010, jazbo wrote:

    Are the oceans rising much, or is it tectonic plate shifts and land sinking/rising, plus tidal shifts?

    Anyhooo, we are about to lose the ENSO finally, so lets see what the next year brings.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 11:33am on 08 Apr 2010, jon112dk wrote:

    It's time for them to abandon this charade - ordinary people have risen up against the whole 'global warming' gravy train. The only effect all this is having on 'emissions' is the endless tons of jet fuel wasted flying these people about the globe to their pointless meetings.

    For the UK we should be doing two things -

    1) A steady move to non-fossil, locally produced, energy to maintain our current quality of life

    2) A complete stop on any and all handouts to the already rich leaders of foreign countries (spend the money on 1, above)

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 11:34am on 08 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    (Janis, Victims of Groupthink, 1972). According to Janis, group cohesion will only lead to groupthink if one of the following two antecedent conditions is present:

    Structural faults in the organization:
    insulation of the group,
    lack of tradition of impartial leadership,
    lack of norms requiring methodological procedures,
    homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.

    Provocative situational context:
    high stress from external threats,
    recent failures,
    excessive difficulties on the decision-making task,
    moral dilemmas.

    Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink occurs:

    Directive leadership.
    Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
    Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.


    AGAIN, ALL the above could be applied to CRU/IPCC, recent failures, hocket stick, etc, no warming for a decade, models under question, sceptics questioning methodology, intense pressure to perform results, prior to copenhagen, etc,etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 12:57pm on 08 Apr 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    I am surprised that no one has mentioned Plato’s Noble Lie in the context of CO2 driven climate change before. Plato lived in Athens, the world’s first democracy, and he regarded democracy as little more than mob rule. In his thesis “The Republic” of 380B.C. he outlined the Noble Lie as a means for leaders to implement necessary but unpopular policy within a democracy, the Noble Lie has become a common tool of modern democracies. According to Plato, the Philosopher Kings (politicians) should decide policy, they should then construct a suitable lie to make it acceptable to the administrators (bureaucrats) who would accept the lie at face value, improve upon it and present it to the masses for their approval. Plato held that there should be different truths for different classes of people. Consider now the many desirable things that would come about as a result of combating CO2 driven climate change, and ask yourself if these things would happen if CO2 were found to be harmless.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 12:59pm on 08 Apr 2010, Wolfiewoods wrote:

    Combating man made global warming is not just desirable in itself, it is also a catalyst for fixing so much else that is wrong with society and the world at large, it is almost as if we needed it, almost too good to be true.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 1:08pm on 08 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    At 11:20am on 08 Apr 2010, jasonsceptic wrote:
    I see my plea for not using such ludicrous images went un-noticed. Cracked earth and a wandering herd. They must be about to die through catastrophic climate change.

    That is the message you want us to take from that photo right?
    ------------------------

    I see that Richard Black and the BBC has still failed to respond to my earlier question...

    59cm or 2 m sea level 'predicted' sea level rise in 100 years..

    how does the bbc justify/pass without criticism, child running from a tidal wave, jumping screaming into a tree... echoing the deaths of 250,000 people killed in the boxing days tsunami (earthquake richard, not co2) copenhagen video, clip shown repeatably on the BBC.

    AGW is NEVER going to generate a tidal wave.

    The ipcc 'tidal wave', is 6mm or 22 mm a year..

    Plenty of time, I repeatedly tell my scared 5 year old daughter, to get out of the way, EVEN if this delusion was true.

    Please explain the bbc's silence on the uncritical use of shear propaganda, to scare the public to do as greenpeace, wwf, ipcc wish..



    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 1:42pm on 08 Apr 2010, minuend wrote:

    Climate Change - ClimateGate - Climate Scam

    The political and international consensus will continue to crumble under the onslaught of public scepticism.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/07/global-warmings-unscientific-method/

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 1:46pm on 08 Apr 2010, BluesBerry wrote:

    I do not believe that climate control is the answer.
    I stand with Bolivia, Cuba, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and little Nauru.
    No "accord" will go far enough because the key factors to climate change are:
    1. Warfare (which shakes the earth’s crust like a rag-doll) and
    2. HAARP (which “excites” the atmosphere, causing floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and other weather catastrophes).
    The first meaningful step I would like to see is: get rid of, blow up, do whatever you need to do to get rid of HAARP.
    The second decision I would like to see is no more bunker busters, or other weapons that penetrate deeply into the earth.
    And the third decision is absolutely no offshore drilling which seriously threatens the earth’s crust.
    The United States speaks with forked tongue. It is notorious for legislation that doesn't happen. There is always something or someone to blame. The general methodology of blame is called “spin”.
    The only way that the weather process will make progress this year is if the United Nations finally grows spine and tells the United States to stop, STOP with HAARP and other manoeuvres (like offshore drilling or coal mining ) that disturb our poor, battered mother earth.
    Only the rest of the world can bring the United States into line.
    The United States operates on divide and conquer.
    So get united and stand up to Uncle Sam.
    What if the US says no? She's innocent. HAARP is not responsible for the vile weather destruction?
    In this case: How about we send inspectors?
    The world is getting to a point where, if we do not stand tall against the United States, we will not be able to stand at all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 2:16pm on 08 Apr 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    This is a 20 year disucssion that is periodically reworded as nothing is done. It is the continuation of moving the line. Fossil fuel industries have been successful in making sure little is done through their lobbying efforts, contributions and political power. The governments want a new revenue stream and that is the carbon tax. This is dangerous because once the governments gain a revenue stream they protect that stream and thus the industry that produces the revenue. The carbon tax becomes an incentive to maintain the fossil fuels. If governments were really interested they would simply required a percentage of revenue from fossile fuels be spent on technologies that reduce carbon emmissions by the fossil fuel industries. They choose address the effect but not the cause, thus continuing the problem.People have realized that governments are corrupt and dishonest and as individuals, foundations and small groups look to support the development of alternative fuels, this is the route of change. Governments are instruments of institutional incrementalism..all change is adopted only as it is already a reality by the people, required in a political context by the people, or a small change while maintaining the status quo. People continue to accept the disappointments from governments as if they have no other choice. Structural change in governments will be required if governments are to represent the people and the corporate state is to be diminished.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 2:30pm on 08 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Richard,

    Nice photo - but can you provide some detail behind it? Is this the first time the ground is cracked from dryness in this area - or is it a natural annual event, before the rainy season? Where was the photo taken?

    If you are going to post a dramatic picture, can we please have some detail behind it?

    Regarding the legislation, I think you are on the mark that it ain't gonna happen. Obama really blew it when he dared the GOP to repeal his health care bill - it will be the big fight to come after the November (mid-term elections). I have doubts that Obama will get anything at this point. It is one thing to win and say it was a hard fight, etc etc...it is another to win and then rub the loser's nose in it. In my view, he has burned what political capital he has left.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 2:41pm on 08 Apr 2010, knownought wrote:

    I agree with jasonsceptic's comments #6 as I also object to the attempted use of subliminal messages re- the unnecessarily emotive photograph of, seemingly, impending disaster.

    Richard, do you think we are all so naive that we can be brainwashed so easily and in such a predictable manner?

    WHY do you persist in doing this?

    Knownought

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 3:15pm on 08 Apr 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    deniers: Neville Chamberlain's of our time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 3:43pm on 08 Apr 2010, davblo wrote:

    LarryKealey #17: "Nice photo - but can you provide some detail behind it?"

    Drought-hit Cyprus starts emergency water rations

    "Official accounts suggest rainfall in Cyprus has fallen by about 20 percent over the past 35 years, a decline experts attribute to climate change"

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 4:55pm on 08 Apr 2010, SheffTim wrote:

    “What a complete waste of time and money when man-made climate change is now conclusively a scam.”

    "I thought you were dead" - "Not hardly". Richard Boone and John Wayne in ‘Big Jake’.

    “Conclusively a scam”? Only in the minds of those living in groupthink (as described above). Groupthink cuts both ways.
    Isn’t it odd that the most vocal climate sceptics all belong to one end of the political spectrum? – or perhaps not.

    It’s a little like the number of times Darwin’s theory of natural selection has been proclaimed ‘dead’ to rise again, and gain strength each time.

    The existence of greenhouse gasses hasn’t been disproved. Nor the heat-trapping properties that these potent GHGs have in our atmosphere, which keeps earth’s temperature much higher than it would otherwise be. Nor has any convincing explanation be put forward and accepted as to why increasing their concentration will not have any impact on earth’s temperature.

    Nor why any change in earth’s temperature will not have major impacts on region’s climates.
    El Nino and La Nina events could be a good analog for this, they both involve small changes in temperature of Pacific waters, yet have major effects on weather patterns worldwide; as those that have kept an eye on the many extreme weather events of the past six months will know – an El Nino formed last year and is still with us.

    There’s plenty of evidence that climate has changed in the past few decades (as show by the fact that few sceptics now try and argue that it hasn’t changed at all; a distinct change from the 1990s).

    I’ve stated before that I doubt much can be done to stop CO2 concentrations rising; there is no handy ‘off the shelf’ alternative to oil and coal available.

    So, we’re running a real-world, real-time experiment.
    The IPCC have made impact assessments of what rising temperatures (and consequent changes to climate) will mean up to the end of the century, we’ll have to see if outcomes start to match predictions?

    But dead? "Not hardly".

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 4:59pm on 08 Apr 2010, andy765gtr wrote:

    haha the funny little denialists and their silly comments are out in force again.

    "its not true, its not true. cos i wanna nother holiday and a new car. its all a scam. wah wah wah. "

    hmm. i wonder what motivates the masses to be interested in science all of a sudden.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 5:07pm on 08 Apr 2010, Ramamurthi wrote:

    All activities which use fossil energy produce carbon emissions.The world is consuming the products of these activities. If this consumption is reduced the emission will reduce. I see that every individual is prone to waste the articles of consumption, starting from water to food,clothing, utilities,transportation,energy etc,etc. This average wastage is almost 40% higher than ideal in the developed nations. In the developing nations it could be around 20%.Even taking into account the lower than the ideal consumption of the underdeveloped nations,the world average consumption is likely to be 20% higher than the ideal.
    Looking at his scenario the cheapest way of reducing emissions will be for people to consume just the ideal amount.
    Of course this will lead to reduction of GDP. Today wastage is adding to high pollution levels and this waste is produced with emissions.
    The US should lead the way since I see that the wastage is maximum there. It pains to see the amount of garbage coming out of every American home.If you look a little more carefully the garbage consists of a good amount of use able products.
    LET US GET RID OF THE EMISSIONS IN CONDUCTING CLIMATE CONFERENCES.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 5:11pm on 08 Apr 2010, andy765gtr wrote:

    "Richard, do you think we are all so naive that we can be brainwashed so easily and in such a predictable manner?"

    nobody would call you lot naive. egregious yes. naive no. i also suggest highly cynical and inconsistently skeptical about something largely because it will effect your lifestyle. something you would pay little attention to otherwise.

    the personality of the denialist is nothing to be proud of.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 5:20pm on 08 Apr 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Nice try, Davblo. The Reuters story dates from 2008 and the picture dates from 2007.

    Maybe you could provide another list - this time a list of misleading pictures and misleading news stories...


    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 5:22pm on 08 Apr 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    And yes I would like to know why Richard picked this picture.
    It's some goats on a reservoir in Cyprus in 2007.

    Most reservoirs look like this in dry months - even here in the UK.

    It's starting to look like our correspondent is losing objectivity....

    Hello ! Anybody there ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 6:12pm on 08 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Paraphrasing two of the earlier posts:

    Skeptic #1: "Climate data is highly unreliable and ideas cannot be tested"

    Skeptic #2: "Climate change is a natural occurrence and has always been so. man-made climate change is now conclusively a scam"

    So what I learned from skeptics today is that climate data is too unreliable to draw any conclusions other than the conclusions skeptics like.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 6:16pm on 08 Apr 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    #22. andy765gtr wrote:

    "haha the funny little denialists and their silly comments are out in force again."

    I think you may find that many of those you insult and even keener on fixing the faults in energy use and generation and the problems caused by development than the supporters of anthropogenic climate change. It is just that they have seen through the CO2 argument and have found that it is too full of errors to have much likelihood of being right as against other causes of climate change. Please read what they write.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 6:19pm on 08 Apr 2010, knownought wrote:

    andy765gtr wrote #26

    "the personality of the denialist is nothing to be proud of"

    This was in reply to an even handed objection #18 to, in my opinion, an underhanded tactic. Nowhere did I mention which side of the debate this objection applied to because I feel it applies to both sides equally. The proponents of AGW do not need to be patronised any more than the opponents need to be insulted.

    PLAYGROUND INSULTS DO YOU FAVOURS!

    Knownought

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 6:24pm on 08 Apr 2010, Steve_the_Brit wrote:

    I don't think there's any argument that the planet is warming. If we leave behind the reason why it is warming we still need to fix it. There are vast quantities of methane hydrates frozen at the ocean bottom. Methane is 20 times more "effective" as a greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide. Methane levels are rising in the atmosphere, parts of the Tundra are thawing (where more methane is trapped).

    Yes, the Earth's climate has changed before, it has also been through long (hotter) periods where it would not support the current biosphere. This is our home, we cannot move out, we must take our responsibilities seriously for the entire biosphere.

    Failing this, our tombstone will read "Mankind: so smart - they knew exactly what killed them".

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 6:57pm on 08 Apr 2010, andy765gtr wrote:

    "It's starting to look like our correspondent is losing objectivity...."

    come on you cant really pass comment on objectivity if you reject basic physics. for what are transparently short term self interest reasons.

    so how do you go about illustrating something abstract like a 2c or more rise in global temperatures. if desertification of the regions where millions of people live is a very likely outcome of climate change, then its a fitting illustration to accompany an article on climate change. i would have thought.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 7:13pm on 08 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    SheffTim @21:

    Compare the thermal capacity of water with that of air, then explain to us why you consider El Nino and La Nina to be 'small' events.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 7:15pm on 08 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    andy765gtr @22:

    And here come all the mudslingers out in force again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 7:30pm on 08 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Smiffie @11:

    "Consider now the many desirable things that would come about as a result of combating CO2"

    Like world government, for example? No thanks!

    Even if that doesn't come about, some of the 'desirable' things that will definitely come about are:

    Hugely increased energy costs
    Hugely increased taxes
    Hugely increased food costs
    Massive power blackouts in ever-increasing numbers
    A huge increase in the number of pensioners dying from the cold in winter
    A huge increase in the number of people worldwide dying of starvation

    Once again, no thanks!

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 7:42pm on 08 Apr 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Man made CO2 global warming doesn't seem quite as relevant as 2193+ earthquakes this week alone plus 3 volcanoes looking ready to pop. The CO2 band wagon will not inspire confidence in those sitting right on top of a fault line or in the shadow of an active volcano. Plato style CO2 propaganda has its place but the public don't want to see politicians and leaders looking as if they are getting a free jolly out of it. It's all a matter of perception of immediately pressing needs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 8:52pm on 08 Apr 2010, Richard Black (BBC) wrote:

    jasonsceptic, knownought et al - you should know I have far too much regard for the intellect of all of you to think you would allow yourselves to be brainwashed by a mere picture.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 9:07pm on 08 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    So why have the picture?

    looks like another sceptic at work below, maybe bbc's turn next:


    "In 2005, Jones made it clear to one of his petitioners that he wasn't going to do that:

    - Even if WMO [the World Meteorological Organisation] agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.-

    This cuts to the heart of the matter. Science must be falsifiable: otherwise it's not science. Those who seek to find something wrong with your data are the first people who should have access to it, not the last. Challenging, refining and improving other people's work is the means by which science proceeds."

    Anybody guessed who it is yet?

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 9:09pm on 08 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:



    SAme journalist wrote today:

    "Jones reveals:

    I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!

    Since I began writing about this issue, I've been assailed by climate scientists and environmentalists, all insisting that Jones did nothing wrong. If these emails meet their standards of professional rectitude I dread to think what else they would find acceptable."


    Do you know who it is yet!!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 9:11pm on 08 Apr 2010, knownought wrote:

    ref #36 from Richard Black (BBC)

    Then why include it? Arguments can stand or fail on their own, visual imagery is unnecessary especially ones which actively promote one viewpoint.

    That said, I appreciate the fact that you have addressed the issue.

    Knownought

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 9:19pm on 08 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    I wonder what Real Climate will make of this..
    same journalist, Part of the Guardian environment network:

    "But there was a simple means of getting the hasslers off his back: release the sodding data.

    In 2005, Jones made it clear to one of his petitioners that he wasn't going to do that:

    Even if WMO [the World Meteorological Organisation] agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."



    It's GEORGE MONBIOT: (Guardian)

    The cheief eco journalist, who made Dr David Bellamy a deniar, has seen the light, and is getting out of Dodge.


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/apr/08/hacked-emails-freedom-of-information?showallcomments=true#comment-51

    Whatever the motivation of the questioners might have been, the original FoI requests appear to have been genuine attempts to obtain information. As the replies sent to one enquirer, Willis Essenbach, show, they were fobbed off in a way guaranteed to make anyone seethe with rage. The letters sent to him by CRU epitomise bureaucratic obfuscation of the kind that anyone who believes in democracy should challenge.

    The Canadian mining investor Steve McIntyre, who runs the website Climate Audit, was also fobbed off. In another email, Phil Jones reveals:

    Think I've managed to persuade UEA [the University of East Anglia] to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.

    That doesn't seem right either. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can refuse to answer their FoI request."


    Wonder if Richard Black or Roger Harrabin will be next...

    Of course they probably haven't got around to actually looking at all the emails yet, or the code,or Harry_read_me.txt. Or the analysis of the above that very many people have kindly done for them.

    Or read 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' or 'Climategate: the Crutape letters'

    I must dash over to RealClimate to see how they are taking it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 9:28pm on 08 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:


    20. At 3:43pm on 08 Apr 2010, davblo wrote:

    LarryKealey #17: "Nice photo - but can you provide some detail behind it?"

    Drought-hit Cyprus starts emergency water rations

    "Official accounts suggest rainfall in Cyprus has fallen by about 20 percent over the past 35 years, a decline experts attribute to climate change"

    ------------------------------------------------

    @davblo

    I buy into that - even man made climate change - it is certainly becoming a major issue in the eastern med region - the culprit - land use and exploding population, not CO2 emissions.

    When you cut down all the trees, it gets dryer...its a hard one to fix, but carbon taxes and banning SUVs will not fix this problem - perhaps planting a billion trees in the region might help...

    Thanks for the background on the pic.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 9:43pm on 08 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:

    30. At 6:24pm on 08 Apr 2010, Steve_the_Brit wrote:

    I don't think there's any argument that the planet is warming. If we leave behind the reason why it is warming we still need to fix it.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    First, an observation - you seem to be quite arrogant to believe that you can 'fix' the planet...I am a bit more humble.

    Secondly, why do you assume that because the earth is warming slightly that 'it need be fixed'??? The earth warms and it cools - if you don't know why its doing it, why would you presume to fix it? How would you 'fix' it? Carbon taxes? cap and trade schemes? I don't really think this will 'fix' the climate, assuming of course, that it need be 'fixed'.

    There are a lot of environmental issues which we do understand quite well and which do need to be 'fixed' like overfishing, cutting down the rain forests, destruction of wetlands, etc...why in your arrogance would you presume that (a) the earth's climate need be fixed and (b) that we have the capability to do it?

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 10:01pm on 08 Apr 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Hi Larry !

    I love the quote from the 2008 Reuters Cyprus story:

    "The experts blamed the change of climate on ... climate change".

    Next up: car crash caused by cars crashing, pope's religion caused by his religion, ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 10:15pm on 08 Apr 2010, bandythebane wrote:

    Last year I placed a bet on how long it would be before Climate Change joined Y2K, BSE induced CJD and the various other scares that have swept through, in the dustbin of history.

    My bet at that time was 5 years and in theory one would have thought Climategate would have brought the date forward.

    However I now think this is not necessarily true. The reaction to Climategate has shown more clearly how deeply ingrained belief in Climate Change is. Some people will never be weaned away no matter what happens and I think we are probably still 5 years away from a change in public policy.

    Has anyone else got any views on how long it will last and what precisely will end it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 10:50pm on 08 Apr 2010, GeoffWard wrote:


    Oh, I am continually disappointed that the group loosely called the deniers focus on the minutiae of argument whilst turning their blind eyes to the elephant in the room.

    There is a major change going on in the polar regions, driving climate changes all over the world. Some of this is exacerbated by human activity. With so many billions of people in the modern world using the geological carbon accumulation of aeons in the span of a human lifetime, the exacerbation is self-evidently dangerous.

    Polar melting will prove more dangerous in the northern hemisphere, not just by impact on the Atlantic Conveyor, but also by methane release. (Richard, I know you are aware of this because we have emailed.) The shallow coastal permafrost melt off Siberia etc. is releasing incrementally massive greenhouse gas volumes. Reversible? – who can tell, perhaps in climatalogical rather than geological time-scales; but as the causal factors are additive, humans should attempt to do what is possible to ameliorate all present-day climatalogical effects.

    I am seriously worried that catastrophe theory predicts a cusp of changed state that will switch the biosphere into a new and unwholesome condition for human survival. Yes, this will reduce the global population of humanity spasmically, and I think we would all like to see it happening at a rate that the species can accommodate to maintain social structures.

    So much is changing and so little is within the powers of this species to control. What we can influence we should influence.

    But to get hung-up on a 2007 picture of a dry margin of a Cypriot reservoir is sad in the extreme.
    For God’s sake - SEE THE ELEPHANT !!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 10:55pm on 08 Apr 2010, andy765gtr wrote:

    "And here come all the mudslingers out in force again."

    and here comes the projection. it comes across as more than a little silly to complain about 'mudslinging' when one of your main arguments is 'a whole branch of science is a worldwide charade just to make money, and extort cash from your pockets'!

    mudslinging ? you denialists wrote the freekin book mate. but i'll give it to you, climategate was certainly some class mudslinging.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 11:03pm on 08 Apr 2010, andy765gtr wrote:

    "First, an observation - you seem to be quite arrogant to believe that you can 'fix' the planet...I am a bit more humble."

    humble? hmm. remind us which group disagrees with a universal, and unequivocal scientific consensus again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 11:21pm on 08 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    44. bandythebane wrote:

    "Has anyone else got any views on how long it will last and what precisely will end it?"

    It will last as long as the science holds up. I have to say your bet isn't looking very good.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 11:26pm on 08 Apr 2010, SheffTim wrote:

    #32. I didn't write small events.

    I wrote above #21: "they both involve small changes in temperature of Pacific waters" - please quote me correctly - "yet have major effects on weather patterns worldwide."

    I don't consider El Nino/La Nina events - "to be 'small' - events". I also wrote above: "yet have major effects on weather patterns worldwide; as those that have kept an eye on the many extreme weather events of the past six months will know".

    By small temperature differences, they can be as small as 1.2 degrees C (as currently) across large parts of the Pacific.

    The warmer waters don't just 'warm' or 'cool'. ENSO involves a transfer of warmer or cooler waters (and associated changes in air pressure) across the tropical Pacific, particularly on the eastern side with associated changes to the trade winds.

    Short attention span, lack of concentration, leaping to conclusions and seeing what's not there (all dressed up in a veneer of GCSE physics)... reasons why I have problems taking what passes as 'sceptical' debate on this (and many other) blogs seriously.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 04:04am on 09 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:



    @Jack Hughes

    Regarding your theory on crashing cars being caused by cars crashing...I am of the opinion that this theory will require significant beer review - I hope you are up to the task mate.

    This will be a trivial exercise compare with climate change being cause by the climate changing...much more significant beer review required, in my humble opinion.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 04:15am on 09 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:

    45. At 10:50pm on 08 Apr 2010, GeoffWard wrote:


    Oh, I am continually disappointed that the group loosely called the deniers focus on the minutiae of argument whilst turning their blind eyes to the elephant in the room.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Actually mate, I believe we are 'derogatorily' referred to as 'deniers', thank you very much.

    To which 'elephant in the room' do you refer to?

    Climate change?
    Habitat loss?
    Rainforest destruction?
    rape of the oceans?
    deforestation?
    'traditional pollution'?

    I can continue if you like with a hundred 'old environmental issues' which have yet to be addressed during my lifetime, but none of which has been addresse - why, cause there ain't big money to be made...

    The elephant you refer to is actually a very rare elephant - the Green Elephant - worth more than gold or platinum.

    Go ahead, demonstrate your intelligence - throw everyone's money at a very poorly understood problem and at solutions which have no hope of 'solving the supposed problem'.

    When you have to turn off your television and internet access because you are paying too much for energy and cannot afford those 'luxuries' anymore...then talk to me about it.

    I don't really believe in the problem - you guessed it - I am a skeptic - but regardless, show me a viable solution. I have yet to see one. I might go for a viable solution - but not this pie in the sky - zero emissions stuff. Ain't gonna happen, ain't gonna work. Just going to make a bunch of rich people richer and the rest of us poorer.

    Cop a clue dude.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 04:18am on 09 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:

    45. At 10:50pm on 08 Apr 2010, GeoffWard wrote:


    Oh, I am continually disappointed that the group loosely called the deniers focus on the minutiae of argument whilst turning their blind eyes to the elephant in the room.

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Deniers???

    Well, I suppose that would make you part of the group loosely called 'the true believers in the one great evil of CO2' - which kinda sounds like a religious sect to me...

    LOL

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 06:29am on 09 Apr 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    For those that find illustrations irksome (or who want to protect themselves from the possibility of any subliminal messaging), you can always switch to "text only" mode.

    Personally I like illustrations - they liven up the page!

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 06:48am on 09 Apr 2010, Robyn81 wrote:

    Once again, thanks Richard for a lucid, so-easy-to-assimilate summary of these important ongoing developments. I especially value your steady, constructive light on things- without oversimplifying them, or downplaying the dangers of our current situation regarding humanly caused climate change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 07:45am on 09 Apr 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Yes. Marvellous photo selection. IPCC-CRU goats which once got an abundance of feed and free trips to Bali or wherever now face the new reality.

    Was that your point?

    The polar bears on ice floes are getting boring. How about a nice photo of a Piltdown man discovering WMDs in Iraq? That would fit this topic more appropriately, and is probably as relevant to this topic as the current photo is.



    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 07:54am on 09 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    I wonder I f Richar Balck agrees with waht George Monbiot said yesterday (guardian) above

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 09:17am on 09 Apr 2010, minuend wrote:

    Please Note: Rainfall records for Cyprus for the past 110 years show a steady DECREASE in yearly rainfall over the entire period.

    If the DECREASE in rainfall for the past 30 years can be blamed on Global Warming then what is to blame for the DECREASE in rainfall for the previous 80 years?

    Answers on a postcard to:

    Richard Black, Environment Correspondent
    Earth Watch, BBC, London, UK.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 09:49am on 09 Apr 2010, nsctcs wrote:

    Spring coming and weather getting warm, speculators find yet another chance of channelling the fabrication, which stands for their personal failure or success. This fabrication won't last five-year long, but lasts until the next cool weather at a period counted by weeks.

    Now then, some one said about the noble lie, some said about scientific results, some said a real-time experiment, and some said about the Elephant. So there is a 75% chance that the man-made global warming theory is considered uncertain even among the fanatics? What the Elephant stands for?

    The key issue that 'sceptics', or as we call ourselves 'the true believers of science', are concerned is that why we have to spend our limited resources on a solution that is completely uncertain? Will reducing Carbondioxide emissions change the trend in climate? Even those fanatics cannot say 'yes' with confidence, unless they are scammers by nature with no scientist blood in their veins. Cannot some fanatic just show us one piece, yes just one piece, of evidence that proves the link between the alleged 2 degree and the effectiveness of Greenhouse Effects? All of us 'true believers of science' know about Greenhouse Effects. What we don't know is how the fanatics have observed and measure a natural mechanism that is unanalysable as for now. Yet we are 'pushed' to agree with a conclusion that no one can prove.

    Do me some favour please, tell me why I have to give special attention to this issue but not to other comfortably known issues.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 10:49am on 09 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #45 GeoffWard wrote:

    "Oh, I am continually disappointed that the group loosely called the deniers focus on the minutiae of argument whilst turning their blind eyes to the elephant in the room."

    The phrase 'elephant in the room' usually refers to something big that some people regard as obvious and important but which others seem not to see or ignore as unimportant.

    Science purports to describe things that cannot be seen directly, such as electrons, viruses, etc. -- and the mechanisms of global warming. Since these things cannot be seen directly, we cannot directly inspect them. Instead we have to consider the quality of the science that purports to describe them.

    If that strikes you as the mere "minutiae of argument", it strikes me as the elephant in the room -- the elephant you seem not to see, or think you can ignore as unimportant.

    The history of science is littered with the corpses of theories of pseudoscientific theories -- of astrology, alchemy, phrenology, numerology, spontaneous generation, homeopathy, reflexology, osteopathy, etc., etc.

    There are also many corpses of genuine science such as the theories of phlogiston, caloric, Ptolemaic astronomy, etc., etc.

    What killed these theories? Hint: it was something a bit like an elephant that some people didn't see!

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 10:58am on 09 Apr 2010, davblo wrote:

    minuend #57: "Please Note: Rainfall records for Cyprus for the past 110 years show a steady DECREASE in yearly rainfall over the entire period."

    You have of course a link to the source of this information.

    Maybe you could share it?

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 12:07pm on 09 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #larrykealey
    "First, an observation - you seem to be quite arrogant to believe that you can 'fix' the planet...I am a bit more humble."

    how about we use 'stop screwing the planet up' then?

    #richard
    i think the tranpsort analogy of the bus is better. if we're to get anywhere we all need to get on board and there's only one viable destination (although turning to avoid the cliff edge is the first priority......but i do think we're close to an 'italian job' type dilemma with all the lovely gold at the back of the bus!).

    of course there will be the usual bunch of miscreants making a noise at the back of the bus but they shouldn;t be allowed to distract the driver.

    ding ding, all aboard......or at least get out of the road.

    analogies can be fun :o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 12:09pm on 09 Apr 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #57 minuend

    "If the DECREASE in rainfall for the past 30 years can be blamed on Global Warming then what is to blame for the DECREASE in rainfall for the previous 80 years?"

    Um, global warming maybe. we've been messing up for millenia it's just getting serious now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 12:38pm on 09 Apr 2010, SR wrote:

    To the comment 'there is not a single piece of evidence linking C02 to temperature rises'

    What would you EXPECT to see? Just stretch your imagination for a brief time and imagine we lived in a world where AGW was actually happening. Now, put yourself into the shoes of a scientist on this fictional world attempting to attribute statistically significant warming to its cause. What would you expect to see?

    There are error bounds. Natural variability plays a role. The enhanced greenhouse effect caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 384ppm also plays a role. Are you qualified as a laymen to determine how much of a role each factor plays? Are you qualified to assess whether the warming is in excess of what is possible by natural variation alone? How much guess-work is implicit in your assessment compared to the guesswork in a scientist's assessment? The weird thing is that the evidence that AGW is happening is huge and varied. Over the past two decades, people have come up with an ever-increasing number of ingenious and creative ways of testing the AGW theory - not much of this new evidence contradicts the theory, rather it supports AGW. This is why the IPCC have gradually increased their confidence in AGW since the first report.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 1:25pm on 09 Apr 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Why not have 2 photos at the top of each post?

    One can be "goats on a dried-up reservoir in 2007" or "polar bears" - maybe davblo can do us a list?

    Then the other photo can be picked by the other side of the aisle:

    * Al Gore's jet
    * The limousines at Copenhagen
    * George Monbiot's 4x4
    * Any one of 16 banquets at Copenhagen
    * The food thrown away after any one of the 16 banquets at Copenhagen
    * Normal life on the planet - this could be a big list
    * Non-endangered species
    * Healthy trees and forests
    * Fabulous coral reefs
    * Normal people enjoying life (see driver for details)
    * Normal weather

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 1:41pm on 09 Apr 2010, minuend wrote:

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    There has been a steady DECREASE in rainfall in Cyprus since records began in 1901.

    The above link to the official Cypriot MoA site makes that very clear.

    If there is a trend in the data then it must be on a scale that covers centuries, and as such CANNOT be attributed to supposed Man Made Global Warming.

    So Richard Black has presented BBC Earth Watchers with a very misleading picture ....... but then again such 'tricks' are par for the course in the climate change debate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 1:55pm on 09 Apr 2010, GeoffWard wrote:


    I apologise for my assumption that the many postings on Richard Black’s blog topic – the legacy of the Copenhagen earth summit – that focused total attention on the appropriateness of an illustrative photograph (the ‘minutiae’), had lost the vision of the larger picture and were just on one side of the larger argument – denial/skepticism/what you will. Posters of both polarities might usefully debate this (small) issue.

    My feeling remains that the great human issue of cultural survival in the face of spasmic climatalogical change should be the focus of attention in this thread.

    I invite you, particularly Larry K., nsctcs and bowmanthebard, to read again my posting:
    You will note that I focused not on global warming, but on climate change; not on anthropogenic effects, but on additive effects; not on CO2, but on ice melt and methane; not on the plethora of other environmental issues, but the subject in question.

    To poster nsctc, this is not a ‘comfort zone’ issue, and it is worthy of our serious attention simply and particularly because of this. You will find that I post quite frequently on other ‘more comfortable’ environmental and ecological issues – such as those suggested: habitat loss, rainforest destruction, ‘rape of the oceans’, deforestation, ‘traditional’ pollution.
    I post, not as Larry Kealey asserts, to demonstrate my intelligence (which, I assure you, is merely average) but to add information, informed opinion and perspective to debates that I consider to be of fundamental importance.

    I live in Brazil and have observed all these issues at first hand and for some years. Like Larry K., I can offer no easy solutions, but in many environmental areas I have observed positive action resulting from people-pressure.
    Keep pressing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 2:09pm on 09 Apr 2010, minuend wrote:

    Try once more:

    http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/ms/ms.nsf/DMLclimet_reports_en/DMLclimet_reports_en?OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=1000&Expand=1

    Three files named "Cyprus Average Annual Precipitation 1901-2008"

    Select the second .pdf file of that name.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 2:24pm on 09 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    62 rossglory wrote:

    "we've been messing up for millenia"

    To "mess something up", there has to be a plan to be "messed up", right? So whose plan did you have in mind?

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 2:32pm on 09 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    I would totally agree with you on the other issues...

    But with respect to man mad co2 and climate change, there is absolutely no evidence of the planets climate doing anything outside it's usual bounds of variability..

    ie it warms, it cools, etc,etc

    Panic on the up slope of a curve, extrapolate linearly ever higher, we are going to die..

    followed and preceded by, the planet is on the downslope of a cooling curver, panic, extrapolate downwards linearly, we are all going to freeze...

    The larger picture surely is, we are NOT doing al the important things with epsect to the environment, but wasting time and money on a delusion.

    And everthing else gets ignored

    Beyond satire, except for all the real environmental issues being ignored

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 2:34pm on 09 Apr 2010, SR wrote:

    @minuend 65

    Your link has been removed sorry, but I did manage to find this on the MoA site.

    "In Cyprus the precipitation presented a decreasing trend and the temperature presented an increasing trend. The rates of change of precipitation and temperature are greater during the second half of the century compared to those in the first half of the century. In the last decades the number of years of low precipitation and drought is greater than before and the semi – arid conditions both in Cyprus and in the eastern Mediterranean were deteriorated. Also, the most of the warm years in the century were observed in the last 20 years.

    The decrease in the amount of precipitation was remarkable. While the average annual precipitation in the first 30-year period of the century was 559 mm, the average precipitation in the last 30-year period was 462 mm, which corresponds to a decrease of 17%.

    The decrease in precipitation occurred mainly in the second half of the century, as a result of the higher frequency of occurrence in the number of years of low precipitation and drought. This is shown in Table 1, where the hydrometeorological years as from 1901-02 are classified according to the normal precipitation of the period 1961-1990."

    If you plot the graph on this page it really is very clear that precipitation decrease has accelerated in the second half of the 20th century.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 2:45pm on 09 Apr 2010, david wrote:

    Recent picture in the press of Ed Miliband standing proudly (sheepishly..?) in front of some new wind farm.
    Now we discover - due to a research paper published in The Netherlands ( [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]) that not only do wind turbines not SAVE any CO2 - they actually INCREASE it, due to the backup generating capacity having to run less efficiently as the random bits of power are fed in from wind farms.
    These calculations mention, but do not factor in, the considerable CO2 emissions required to build the things, and the necessary additional infrastructure - typically three-and-a-half years to recoup at theoretical output (never achieved).
    Bear in mind that the wind NEVER blows in response to electricity demand - it just blows when it feels like it - and utility companies are bound to accept the output from wind farms - hence the above inefficiencies.
    The only beneficiaries from windfarms are:
    The turbine manufacturers
    The developers/landowners
    The government.
    No-one else.
    So - when is someone going to be brave enough to call a halt to these monstrosities, before they blight the whole countryside, and decimate the bird population - in a vain attempt to 'reduce' CO2..??

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 2:58pm on 09 Apr 2010, SR wrote:

    minuend @67

    The graph of average annual rainfall in Cyprus shows that there is no trend up to about 1970. There is a change around this time to a slight decreasing trend, but I don't know if it is statistically significant. This does not necessarily mean climate change is not responsible - there's not enough evidence to say either way. In a few more years, the trend will probably reach significance and the assertion that 'there has been a statistically significant decrease in rainfall for the 1970 to 2020 period compared to the 1901 to 1970 period' could be made - it's getting close to that point. Maybe someone can carry out a significance test on the most up to date data.

    The problem you have as a sceptic is to explain why there has been a statistically significant change since in the trend since 1970.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 3:12pm on 09 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @63

    " Over the past two decades, people have come up with an ever-increasing number of ingenious and creative ways of testing the AGW theory - not much of this new evidence contradicts the theory, rather it supports AGW. This is why the IPCC have gradually increased their confidence in AGW since the first report"

    name ONE test that's validated the theory. Just ONE.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 3:28pm on 09 Apr 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Okay lets shoot the picture to bits and thanks to Menuend @ 67 for the link.

    The picture is of the north end of the Kouris Dam in the Limassol district of cyprus. It was completed in 1988 and holds a total of 115 million cubic meters of water. In 5/3/04 the dam overflowed for the first time.

    Previous and since the highest water level has been 89m3, as of this morning the dam is at 73m3.

    Typically, the whole project has been a total environmental mess from day one. Built 10km north of the carbonate base has meant that Akrotiri aquafiers have not been recharged and water is pumped out of the dam as a result. Add to this massive building and construction and the demand simply out stretches supply. So pictures such as Richard's are very common not only at Kouris but at all dams.

    Cyprus rainfall for the warmists has always been low even been mentioned during that period "that shall not be named" MWP. The figures for the last century show that rainfall has fallen by 1mm per annum over the last century or the last 30years are 17% below those of the first 30 years. There are no details of changes in stations, methods etc. so it is a bit rough. However, during that 20th century 29 years were below normal rainfall, 37 were for normal rainfall and 34 years above normal.

    Which by anybody's book is basically nothing to see here move along. As for the goats I'm sorry to report that they are no longer with us but were pretty tasty when roasted for 24 hours in a clay oven.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 3:47pm on 09 Apr 2010, SR wrote:

    LabMunkey @73

    No one test can completely validate a theory.

    Experimental evidence can, however, support a theory. The Iris satellite has produced direct, emperical evidence that the greenhouse effect has increased over the past quarter of a century. See harries (2001, nature):

    "Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."

    There have been several follow up papers by separate researchers who have reached very similar conclusions. This is one of MANY lines of evidence supporting AGW.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 3:58pm on 09 Apr 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #SR @72

    What aload of BS, you need to add in the year 2009/10 to your figure were rainfall is some 167% above normal. 2004 which was when the dam overflowed. It is nonsense to speculate the way you are. Well I suppose that is what warmists do look for for doom and gloom in everything when there is none to be found.

    Climate change you mean man made from CO2 is not responsible for any observed rainfall data or temperature change in Cyprus.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 4:09pm on 09 Apr 2010, minuend wrote:

    When you do 30 year average mean on the Cyprus rainfall data over the entire period of 110 years of data it highlights that the last 30 years has NOT seen the greatest average rate of DECREASE. There have been 30 year periods over the past 110 years that have shown a greater rate of decrease.

    This proves CONCLUSIVELY that supposed Man Made Global Warming has nothing to do with the recorded decrease in rainfall in Cyprus.

    Here again we have a AGW poster-child that fails the fact checking. This has become emblematic of the climate change debate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 4:17pm on 09 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:


    @rossglory

    I am all for 'stop messing up the planet'...

    Can you offer some viable solutions? Even if CO2 were 'the elephant in the room' - which I do not believe at this point, what are you going to do about it? I have yet to see any viable solutions. Period.

    Meanwhile, we are 'messing up the planet' in a lot of ways. And while the solutions and answers are not easy - they exist an are viable. We can stop deforestation, we can restore wetlands, we can protect habitat and even restore habitats the world over.

    We can't do anything about CO2 emissions at this time, they will continue to rise for another 50 years no matter what we do - until we have nuclear fusion power plants...

    In the meantime, why waste our money and efforts on a supposed problem which we cannot solve. Even if you could reduce emissions in the west by 80%, emissions would still rise dramatically. OPEC is not going to stop pumping oil, and as long as they pump it, its going to get used.

    We have finite resources and capabilities (a fact that seems lost on Mr. Obama and Mr. Gore and others). We need direct those resources and capabilities where we can make a difference.

    Lets focus on stopping the environmental rape of the planet...you know, the traditional environmental issues and 'traditional pollution'.

    And how about the root of most of our environmental problems - population explosion. The only answer which has been shown to work is development - development with cheap energy and cheap food (they do go hand in hand). Why deny this to the third world? That should be our focus, reduce the agricultural requirements of the third world by 90% with technology and cheap energy - and we can preserve and restore precious habitats all over the world - our most precious resource.

    There are those who argue that if we don't address CO2 emissions then nothing else will matter - poppycock - if we spend all our money and resources there and continue to ignore all the other, more pressing environmental issues, there will be nothing left...

    Again, show me a solution that will work. Tell me how you are going to make china stop building cars? stop burning coal with 70's technology? How about India, Africa...the list goes on...show me the money, as we say here...

    In the meantime, lets put our money and efforts where we can make a difference. Example, the Marine Sanctuary which was created around Diego Garcia two weeks ago - a wonderful step forward. Yes, there are 8,000 people who are upset because they don't get to exploit those waters - and have them all to themselves for exploitation - but then again there are a million times that many people on the planet who will benefit.

    The age of fossil fuels is still with us, but it won't last through the century - it will be replaced with a cheaper, cleaner source - fusion. In the meantime, lets come crashing down on traditional polluters, rather than rewarding them for installing CO2 scrubbers while they still ruin the land, the air and the water table with noxious chemicals.

    Lets bring cheap energy to Africa for farming and irrigation and greatly reduce the land required to support each person.

    If countries want to be paid not to cut their forests, ok, I'll go for that, we pay them, then we own the forest...but I am not for paying them to retain something which is more valuable standing than razed.

    Get serious, show me an answer that will really work...

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 4:19pm on 09 Apr 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @75

    the entire synopsis
    "The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."

    this would not seem to support what you think it does. I would also like to point out that methane would have a much larger effect than co2....

    so this paper, whilst interesting doesn't quite offer the support you think it does.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 4:22pm on 09 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:

    @Kamboshigh wrote:

    "As for the goats I'm sorry to report that they are no longer with us but were pretty tasty when roasted for 24 hours in a clay oven."

    Man, you got that right, first time I had goat like that was at the Medina in Merakesh - ugly, dark filthy stalls where they cooked the goat in clay pots, little pots with chimneys... - but oh, sooooo good. I wish I could get that here in Texas...;)

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 4:22pm on 09 Apr 2010, SR wrote:

    @kamboshigh 74

    "However, during that 20th century 29 years were below normal rainfall, 37 were for normal rainfall and 34 years above normal.

    Which by anybody's book is basically nothing to see here move along. "

    Only in a mathematically naive person's book. These figures are comparing to the 1961-1990 average. If you compared to the 1931 to 1960 average (which is higher), you'd get a very different picture - more years in the latter part of the 20th century would fall below.

    A statistical test of the trends would be a better way to analyse this. The more I look at the data, the more convinced I am that there is a statistically significant drop in the trend at about 1970.

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 4:25pm on 09 Apr 2010, SR wrote:

    kamboshigh @76

    "What aload of BS, you need to add in the year 2009/10 to your figure were rainfall is some 167% above normal. 2004 which was when the dam overflowed. It is nonsense to speculate the way you are. Well I suppose that is what warmists do look for for doom and gloom in everything when there is none to be found."

    You NEED to look at long term trends, not individual years. If you do this properly, you'll see a downward trend since 1970. It's not about being a warmist or a sceptic, it's just analysing the data properly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 4:35pm on 09 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @SR #75

    Re: The results/paper that you've just cited - You might be interest in reading this:

    http://landshape.org/enm/interpretation-bias/

    Or you might not... Still, I think it's worth a click, if only in the interests of balanced enquiry ;-)


    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 4:39pm on 09 Apr 2010, SR wrote:

    minuend @77
    "When you do 30 year average mean on the Cyprus rainfall data over the entire period of 110 years of data it highlights that the last 30 years has NOT seen the greatest average rate of DECREASE. There have been 30 year periods over the past 110 years that have shown a greater rate of decrease."

    You have me confused. That graph shows a 30 year rolling average. It has been going down linearly since about 1970 and has never been lower than it is now. What am I missing?

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 4:50pm on 09 Apr 2010, SR wrote:

    @labMunkey 79

    Maybe you should read this paragraph from the main body of the paper:

    "Our interpretation of Fig. 1 is as follows. We consider first the
    sharp spectral features. A negative-going brightness temperature
    difference is observed on the edge of the CO2 n2 band, between 710
    and 740 cm-1, in accord with the known increase in atmospheric
    CO2 concentrations between 1970 and 19971."

    This is experimental evidence that increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 has enhanced the greenhouse effect by demonstrating that the earth's outgoing longwave radiation has CHANGED as a result of increased CO2.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 5:15pm on 09 Apr 2010, rapidian_stuart wrote:

    Ahhhhhh, I caught a mere glimpse of Richard Black's picture and my brain was wiped.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 5:15pm on 09 Apr 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    SR

    Simple mate get a life, your whole religion is built on trying to find false theories and trends were none exist. If there is no doom and gloom involved I presume you get upset.

    There is no trend in the Cyprus data and that data goes back to the Knights Templar. How is your figure for 1974 by the way?

    Sorry you want to do what with raw data? Oh not change it to show some stupid theory. It is not here, try somewhere else, however, the warmists are running out of locations to peddle the junk. You couldn't analysis the contents of an empty paper bag

    Larry, it's called Kleftiko and is pretty easy to do if you have a BBQ (kettle drum version)I'll try and dig out a receipe for you, can you get lamb or mutton in Texas? Hang on you've got Walmart.

    Let you know if interested you need to have the spuds done in the same pot.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 5:53pm on 09 Apr 2010, LarryKealey wrote:

    @Kamboshigh

    Very interested...I can not only get lamb and mutton, but also fresh goat ;)

    Potatoes and carrots are definitely a requirement...much appreciated.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 6:37pm on 09 Apr 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    I guess half of the commenters here had beter look out...!!!!

    British campaigner urges UN to accept 'ecocide' as international crimeProposal to declare mass destruction of ecosystems a crime on a par with genocide launched by lawyer
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/09/ecocide-crime-genocide-un-environmental-damage


    Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.


    I'm sure my name is on someone list somewhere..

    I regret posting on greenpeace now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 6:50pm on 09 Apr 2010, SR wrote:

    @kamboshigh 87

    "Sorry you want to do what with raw data? Oh not change it to show some stupid theory."

    No. Just analyse it in a conventional way. You get around this whole partisan thing by proving that your methods are sound. To me, this Cyprus rainfall data is quite a good demonstration of how amateurs can very quickly jump to a wrong conclusion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 7:16pm on 09 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    SheffTim @79:

    "they both involve small changes in temperature of Pacific waters" - please quote me correctly - "yet have major effects on weather patterns worldwide."

    I don't believe I took you out of context.
    They may not have been your exact words, but most people would have understood your meaning as, "Small changes in Pacific waters have a profound effect on the climate, ergo small CO2-induced changes must have significant effects"

    El Nino and La Nina events move absolutely vast amounts of energy from one part of the globe to another. Totally incomparable to a fraction of a degree change in average atmospheric temperature.

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 7:45pm on 09 Apr 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #89 Barry Woods wrote:

    "Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change."

    This is also what James Hansen proposed a couple of years ago.

    I welcome this sort of obvious fascist psychosis as it shows what a bunch of brainless hysterics we're dealing with. If the general public were still on board, I'd be worried. But they've jumped bandwagon quite decisively, at least in the US and UK. In Germany the movement is still alive, however!

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 7:46pm on 09 Apr 2010, SR wrote:

    blunderbunny @83

    "Re: The results/paper that you've just cited - You might be interest in reading this:

    http://landshape.org/enm/interpretation-bias/

    Or you might not... Still, I think it's worth a click, if only in the interests of balanced enquiry ;-)"


    I did click, and I have looked. Can I explain why this article is misleading?

    First, there is the 'rebuttal' by a guy called Raschke published in the 'journal of analytical chemistry'. I can't access the full paper, only the first page but from what i've read it is nowhere near good enough to be a strong threat to the Harries paper. It's more of a general overview of uncertainties in climate science, published in a chemistry journal. Hmmm...if this is the strongest opposition to the Harries work then I don't think he should be worried.

    The next point is the author of thee article's attempt to find Harries contradicting his strong conclusions in the original paper. He thinks he's done and proclaims:"The phrase “evidence of a change in the clear-sky greenhouse radiative forcing” is a much weaker claim than the previous “experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. This is playing with semantics. Nothing more.

    Now this is sloppy. The author must be skim reading the papers or selectively reading the abstracts - he says "Another paper in 2004 reveals more uncertainties, particularly in the earlier instrumentation:"
    Yet (and you can check this), the quote he used is from exactly the same paper as the first quote! To top this off, the author has clearly COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD the meaning of what Harries is saying. The clear sky spectra accuracy is within a few tenths of a kelvin accuracy whilst the all sky spectra is less accurate. Harries quite rightly points out tha using the spectra data to come to conclusions about climate FEEDBACK is not possible. On what planet does this render Harries 2001 paper, where only the clear sky spectra is used, wrong? He's not looking at FEEDBACK in that paper, only the change in the outgoing longwave radiation.

    Just try to think carefully about what conclusion you can draw from this article, It is sloppy, poor and in no way changes any of the conclusions from Harries original paper. It is, however, written in the kind of way that is accessible to a scpetic already convinced that AGW is rubbish.

    It's not about 'interpretation bias', it's about good science getting the most credit and weak science being discarded.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 8:19pm on 09 Apr 2010, nsctcs wrote:

    quoted from SR

    "Are you qualified as a laymen to determine how much of a role each factor plays? Are you qualified to assess whether the warming is in excess of what is possible by natural variation alone? How much guess-work is implicit in your assessment compared to the guesswork in a scientist's assessment? The weird thing is that the evidence that AGW is happening is huge and varied. Over the past two decades, people have come up with an ever-increasing number of ingenious and creative ways of testing the AGW theory - not much of this new evidence contradicts the theory, rather it supports AGW."


    Fine, links to the reports that explain the significance of individual factors, links to the scientists' assessement, and links to the reports that prove AGW is true. Link, just one, please. Many are fed up by the empty claims of 'overwhelming evidence' as none has been made into the publich.

    I can as well give you links to the geochronological evidence that proves AGW is nothing but a hypothesis, which is demanding immense resources from those who are confused by scientific terminology rather than by any single piece of scientific evidence.


    Every funny thing starts in c. 1970, every single funny thing. Then finance, industry seconded, culture as the third, and now the climate. Fine, I will buy it, just show me the evidence. Otherwise I hope people like SR will admit the lack of solid evidence and stop this nonesense.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 8:38pm on 09 Apr 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @SR

    It seems no warmist is going to have a good day, today.

    You'd do better to research the people that your trying to poor scorn on.

    Raschke, not only works for the GKSS Research Centre, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, he's also published numerous peer-reviewed climate related papers in a number of different journals.

    I think he might know a little more than you, but what do you think?

    BTW: Some sort of remedial googling course would seem to be required.

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 9:22pm on 09 Apr 2010, SheffTim wrote:

    Peter317. 91. "Totally incomparable to a fraction of a degree change in average atmospheric temperature."

    But quite comparable to the effect a small change in sea temperatures (SSTs) could have on global weather patterns. You mentioned 'thermal capacity of water' so you have some understanding.
    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100121_globalstats.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 9:59pm on 09 Apr 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    Whilst empirical evidence of causality in the relationship between CO2 levels and climate change is inevitably confounded by the immense complexities in planet-scale climatological research, I can recommend a research paper that is leading in the right direction one branch of research on the problem.
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
    You will remember that I was concerned about the non-linearity of climatic responses to forcing-factors. I was particularly worried about the catastrophic potential when conditions approach cusp, and the immense difficulty that entropy creates for a world that flips to a new climatological state. This paper by Lucarini approaches matters in a fundamental, thermodynamic, hard-science fashion.
    The closer this, and similar models take us to understanding real-life, real-time situations the happier I will become about the robustness of predictive climatology. Paradoxically, it seems likely that I will become progressively unhappier with the messages derived from the outputs.
    Intellectually, I feel it would be nice to know what’s going on, even if the cusp gets us in the end.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 10:01pm on 09 Apr 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    Whilst empirical evidence of causality in the relationship between CO2 levels and climate change is inevitably confounded by the immense complexities in planet-scale climatological research, I can recommend a research paper that is leading in the right direction one branch of research on the problem.
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
    You will remember that I was concerned about the non-linearity of climatic responses to forcing-factors. I was particularly worried about the catastrophic potential when conditions approach cusp, and the immense difficulty that entropy creates for a world that flips to a new climatological state. This paper by Lucarini approaches matters in a fundamental, thermodynamic, hard-science fashion.
    The closer this, and similar models take us to understanding real-life, real-time situations the happier I will become about the robustness of predictive climatology. Paradoxically, it seems likely that I will become progressively unhappier with the messages derived from the outputs.
    Intellectually, I feel it would be nice to know what’s going on, even if the cusp gets us in the end.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 10:25pm on 09 Apr 2010, SR wrote:

    @ blunderbunny 95

    Raschke may well be a climate scientist. But what impact has this paper had? Why is it published in a journal for chemistry and not atmospheric science? Why do you trust this one dissident view over the views of....for instance, Griggs, Chen, Philipona, Brindley...any modern undergraduate text on atmpsheric science, etc. I don't even know what Raschke's objection of Harries' paper was, would you like to enlighten me? All I know is that it had zero effect on the scientific community. It seems like some people are willing to gamble on one marginal view being right at the expense of subjugating 99% of the other scientists in the field. This is what you are doing by maintaining that Raschke is right and all the other researchers in the field are wrong. What makes it even worse is that you, or the author ofthat article you posted, do not know what Raschke's criticisms are. Or maybe you'll surprise me, who knows.

    What do you think about the other criticisms of that article?...you haven't responded to those...

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 11:44pm on 09 Apr 2010, nsctcs wrote:

    To Geoffward
    I appreciate your polite replies without pretending masterships, which can only convince their own users.
    I did not have the fortune to follow the link as it was broken, though the link went to a source whose information I am apparently familiar. As I have stated, not a single piece of evidence has been issued to the publich, with confidence.

    The limited collaboration between temperature change and the trend in CO2 concentration, or the non-linearity as you said, is a concern of mine, and that's why I feel upset about the demanding attitude shown by climate workers. The other evidence which you might as well know is that CO2 concentration always rose and fell following after the trend in temperature in paleoclimatology. This lag is stark evidence of insignificance of CO2 in climate changes, but it is a sorry knowledge for climate workers because they are not taught of what happened 500 years ago. And lets save the time and not talk about palm trees growing on Canadian beaches or the Sahara being covered with plants.

    They lead me to believe that we have to be extremely careful of the hypothesis of AGW, since it is only supported by guess-works as many of climate workers have admitted, whilst direct evidence proves only its uncertainty.

    If the climate workers demand for more resources for improvement of their research, I will be with them. But this is not the case. They are waving a blank flag demanding trillions of money and condemning everyone who is not with them upon the hypothesis that is not only unproved but also contradicted by solid evidence. This is not science. This is 'discourse', the 'hot topic' in 'social sciences', which have made a good number of clever students discard evidence and manipulate publishings with 'strategies'.

    I cannot help suspecting that your intent to introduce 'other' environmental issues into the discussion is yet another strategy. But for your interest, I recognise myself an environmental sympathiser. What I cannot stand is the inappropriate fashion in science as now stubborn refusal to publishing evidence is an accepted attitude.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 00:32am on 10 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    "The other evidence which you might as well know is that CO2 concentration always rose and fell following after the trend in temperature in paleoclimatology. This lag is stark evidence of insignificance of CO2 in climate changes"

    That doesn't follow.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 00:42am on 10 Apr 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    SheffTim @96:

    I'm confused. What was your point then? You seem to be backing away from what I thought it was.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 00:56am on 10 Apr 2010, nsctcs wrote:

    To infinity

    It did. Please beware of the key term PALEOclimatology.
    The link, which would possibly be removed, is climate workers' recognition of the lag.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
    Indeed the writer gave an interpretation which complied with the main discourse that displeases me. I, however, appreciate his honesty of saying CO2 operated as an 'amplifier', an argument actually supports the 'scepticism' that CO2 is not the determinant, but an accelerator. And this is my question: granted CO2 an accelerator, how effective this accelerator is? Why do we ignore the determinant, which remains mysterious for us, and persue the accelerator?

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 01:28am on 10 Apr 2010, infiniti wrote:

    co2 is only an "accelerator" in ice core records because it was caused by temperature rise. But in the past 200 years co2 rise has been caused by human emissions. Therefore recently it can be the "determinant".

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 01:46am on 10 Apr 2010, nsctcs wrote:

    You are perfectly right. It 'can' be. But is it?

    If 50000 years ago CO2 concentration was of limited importance in temperature movements, why it is of difinitive importance now? Just because it is higher? Or because 'the modern CO2' is not produced by the nature but produced by human and it is badder?

    A lot of work is needed here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 5:41pm on 10 Apr 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    My reference to Plato’s Noble Lie was intended to show how a lie like warming can be used to force through something desirable like freeing ourselves from energy controlled by regimes that despise us and that finance those who bomb us.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 10:39pm on 10 Apr 2010, marilice dias wrote:

    Climate deal fear as talks resume
    By Richard Black
    CURBING CARBON EMISSIONS
    This would be impractical given the breadth and scope in the procurement methods to help identify areas that need to be addressed more thoroughly to provide direction on what should be considered as a priority.
    The toolkit does not provide a ‘one size fits all’ answer. All (countries) could take together their first tentative steps on two feet a transparent benchmark to drive real reductions in emissions with a choice of a Planning applications and enforcement. A frightening increase of empty plastic bottle, the mundane debris of food wrappers, cigarette butts and drink wrappers into the seas and landfill provides urgently needed legal protections for environment (the volume, the quantity). I am sure that should have a more efficient recycling message the place and size according with the volume and being immediately seen. The results confirm that mechanical recycling is the best waste management option in respect of the change potential, depletion of natural resources AND ENERGY DEMAND IMPACTS. The analysis highlights again that these benefits of recycling are mainly achieved by avoiding production of virgin plastics. THE BAN OF USE 100% FINITE NATURAL BY THE INDUSTRY. THE MECHANICAL RECYCLING IMPROVES.
    MARILICE DIAS

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 11:35pm on 10 Apr 2010, SheffTim wrote:

    #102. Peter, perhaps we're just misunderstanding each other? I'll try and clarify below.

    "They may not have been your exact words, but most people would have understood your meaning as, "Small changes in Pacific waters have a profound effect on the climate, ergo small CO2-induced changes must have significant effects."

    A little more sophisticated than that. I'd say regional weather patterns rather than climate per se; unless changes took place over a decadal scale in which case they would impact on regional climate.
    http://sites.google.com/site/weatherandclimate/

    If you accept that rising GHG concentrations would produce a warming of earth's temperature (OK, I do, you don't, but bear with me.), then this would contribute to a warming of the oceans. (Heat won't be distributed evenly because of various factors such as currents, latitude, convection etc.)

    Therefore small changes in the temperatures of ocean waters (and resulting ocean/atmosphere interactions) could have profound effects on global weather patterns, similar to those of El Nino/La Nina, but of a more long-lasting nature.

    Why do I think this a concern? Example below, resulting from the current El Nino.
    http://www.asianews.it/news-en/El-Ni%C3%B1o-and-heavy-industry-leave-South-East-Asia-waterless-17874.html

    Even if not due to GHG's (I remain open minded), any warming of earth's atmosphere would hold similar concerns.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.