Climate change predictions

125 comments on “Climate change predictions ”

• Comments are now closed

1. One Anonymous Bloke 1

   5 November 2011 at 8:43 am

   Yes, IPCC AR4 is being revealed as the biased document many of us have always suspected. Political interference from fossil fuel concerns has resulted in an attempt to achieve ‘consensus’ on human terms rather than scientific ones.
   To be fair, previous results have come in within the margins of error (always on the high side) – this is the first result that’s “akshully” outside the upper limit.
   This news makes it even more important that the Keystone XL pipeline be scrapped.
   One bit of positive news that you didn’t mention:
   “developed countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol, Canada notwithstanding, have collectively reduced CO2 emissions to below 1990 levels”.
   Let’s hope the Occupy Movement gets a firm grip on US politics.
   • aerobubble 1.1

     5 November 2011 at 9:15 am

     Seriously, Brash claims Shale gas will solve all our energy problems….

     …the man is old, he doesn’t have to live in a post-peak oil world.

     The problem is money talks, and its now buying up the airwaves
     to push shonkey economics. And there is very little that will change
     because the editors in the newsrooms and paper moguls are
     either old, or selected because they reflect the older views.

     It was evolutions fault, older people were the sages, change
     was slow, but as we maximize every resource to sustain
     ourselves we as a species need to become much more
     efficient at correctly and timely meeting every more
     significiant change.

     And therein lies the problem, Democracy was concieved
     in a time of togos, or old men deliberating. Brash, or
     younger upwardlu mobile John Keys who emulate their
     thinking, selected preciously because they have proven
     track record being rewarded for their speculative risk
     taking accomplishments.

     We need our universities to be ivory towers again, we
     need our government plump with bureaucrats with long
     memories, we need our parliaments functioning with to
     many members not too few, with long deliberations
     between chambers. we need what’s the word, integrity.

     Key has no integrity, our politics have no integrity,
     our media has no integrity, our society is heading
     for massive change, once again brought on by
     arrogant conservative forces with too much to
     lose and to stupid to realize they lose everything if
     they are wrong anyway.
     • mik e 1.1.1

       5 November 2011 at 1:22 pm

       Dinosaur Don advocating dinosaur fuel
       There is a direct link to co2 volume in the atmosphere and Global temperature
       The graphs are identical even the sceptics are now saying it is a fact
       Only the Dinosaur believes otherwise and the inevitable is happening
       Act is becoming extinct.
2. Pete 2

   5 November 2011 at 9:41 am

   Oh Dear, the chicken littles are out again. The same old alarmist tripe. You really should try to be a little more balanced. Richard Muller’s testimony was highly controversial and the BEST study has done nothing to dispel this. Read Judith Curry’s attempts to distance herself from some of the claims of this study and it’s PR campaign. Not to mention the fact that recent actual temperature records show the earth cooling.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

     5 November 2011 at 10:10 am

     Pete, drop your preconceptions and start looking for arguments to contradict your opinions, rather than always hearing what you want to. If recent actual temperature records show Earth cooling, then why doesn’t the BEST study reveal this? Muller is a physicist, not a climatologist, good luck pretending that he is “hiding the decline”. Do climatologists care about the surface temperature record because they think it will “prove” that the greenhouse effect exists? No – the greenhouse effect is Physics. They pay attention to the temperature record because they wish to establish the true value of climate sensitivity.

     But by all means argue the toss with the experts if you think you know better. It’s always amusing watching people make complete dicks of themselves.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.2

     5 November 2011 at 11:10 am

     Richard Muller’s testimony was highly controversial…

     Wow, these RWNJs are quick to stick the knife in aren’t they?

     A scientist sceptical of the findings of other scientists went and did his own study which confirmed the other scientists. The RWNJs are obviously pissed because they’re the ones who backed his study in the hopes that it would prove them right only for it to prove them wrong.
     • Bazar 2.2.1

       5 November 2011 at 2:33 pm

       “Wow, these RWNJs are quick to stick the knife in aren’t they?”

       Because the term “RWNJ” is synonymous with “climate change denialists”…
       • felix 2.2.1.1

         5 November 2011 at 2:37 pm

         There’s a very substantial crossover.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1.1.1

           5 November 2011 at 2:49 pm

           For the two sets A and B, the intersection C is such that:
           (A + B) ~ C
           • felix 2.2.1.1.1.1

             5 November 2011 at 3:03 pm

             lol, pretty much.
3. randal 3

   5 November 2011 at 9:42 am

   I know that the climate is changeing but before I do anything I need a new fridge, car, washing machine, cell phone, flatscreen teevee, boat, motorcycle, horizontal planer, vertical planer, leaf blower and a trip to mongolia first.
4. Bill 4

   5 November 2011 at 9:52 am

   Serious question. How does voting in any configuration of parties as our government lead to positive action on climate ‘change’?

   The market sits above, beneath and around governments and has embedded within it, actors who are much more powerful and influencial than governments. Those actors can bring governments down in a flash if they have a mind to…eg by crippling domestic economies.

   The market itself is driven by the motive of profit and is simply incapable of taking other factors into account. Putting the limited efficacy and market potential of ethical consumption aside, any productive entity that attempted to operate on a rational basis that impacted negatively on the accumulation of profit would be putting itself at a competitive disadvantage and would lose out to competitors or be ‘wiped out’ .

   That’s how the market works.

   If goverments are going to relied on to provide ‘a fix’, then they would have to commit to a command economy…ie, an economoy that nullifies the effect of the profit motive. Putting aside the obvious barriers that market entities would put in the way of such untaking, I don’t think people would willingly subject themselves to the loss of political freedoms that such a scenario would entail.

   So, unless there is another system of production and distribution, besides either a market or command economy (or some mix of the two), that ‘representative’ governments could play a role in, then it stands to reason that government (as we presently envisage and practice it) can’t provide solutions.

   Or have I missed something? If I have, I’m all ears.
   • alex 4.1

     5 November 2011 at 10:37 am

     The Greens are proposing that in the short term the market needs to be used as a tool to start people making the transition away from a fossil fuel world through providing big incentives for developing renewables. Over the next few decades oil will simply be too expensive for people to use, and renewables will make more economic sense. Its not perfect, and I’m personally uneasy about market solutions for any problems, but it is definitely a start.

     Perhaps a command economy is what is needed though. Its a grim thought, but about the only time society pulls together and works for the common good is wartime. With that same mindset, perhaps there would be a way to transform society into something sustainable, but it would go down like a dead rat with the capitalist class who would lose their riches.
     • Afewknowthetruth 4.1.1

       5 November 2011 at 11:00 am

       alex.

       The Greens might have some credibility now if they had not spent years keeping silent about Peak Oil, had not promoted international tourism as a ‘sustainable component of the NZ economy’, had not promoted the use of so-called ‘biofuels’ etc. Many of us challenged the drivel that the Greens churned out …. and were ignored, of course.

       The Greens are just another disaster-as-usual party. The difference between them and other iosaster-as-usual partoes is that the Greens promote Greenwash (non-solutions that give the appearance of addressing issues)

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing.
     • Bill 4.1.2

       5 November 2011 at 11:24 am

       The Greens are proposing that in the short term the market needs to be used as a tool to start people making the transition away from a fossil fuel world through providing big incentives for developing renewables.

       The only incentive the market offers is profit. What are these other ‘big incentives’ that the Greens envisage coming from the market? Perhaps a fuzzy ‘feel good’ factor being bestowed on companies and corporations for ‘doing the right thing’?

       Production motivated by profit got us here. Production motivated by profit doesn’t go anywhere but further in this same direction. If oil will be too expensive in a decade or two then – so what? Ten or twenty years from now is (possibly) twenty or thirty years too late.

       As for capitalists swallowing dead rats in a command economy , what about the dead rats you and I would be required to swallow? Just as Bakunin correctly figured that state soshulism would result in a tyrannical “red bureaucracy”, it absolutely follows that ‘state environmentalism’ (for want of a better term) would produce a tyrannical “green bureaucracy”, no?

       A command economy isn’t, as you suggest, a grim prospect. It’s just not unacceptable.
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.2.1

         5 November 2011 at 12:26 pm

         Quite right – unacceptable to the 1% to have intervention in ‘free markets’ but quite acceptable to them to have 157,000 unemployed as a result of those same ‘free markets’.

         The 99% have been swallowing rats at the behest of the 1% for a long time.
         • Bill 4.1.2.1.1

           5 November 2011 at 1:00 pm

           Not quite sure what you’re saying there CV.

           A command economy entails zero (or tending to zero) political freedom for the overwhelming majrity. And a command economy elevates a new privileged elite to stand in the space vacated by the elites of the market economy….a new ‘1%’.

           And whereas a command economy could do some good stuff, like instruct (say) that all coal fired power stations shut down tomorrow, they are intrinsically moribund and do nothing to encourage people to achieve any potential they may have.
           • Colonial Viper 4.1.2.1.1.1

             5 November 2011 at 2:53 pm

             Highly structured and actively led free economies seem to work well.

             China, Singapore, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, have all been through that phase (or are still in them).

             Government puts in place very clear rules, priorities and regulation. Certain industries and areas of specific areas of economic development are favoured with cheap capital availability and active government promotion.

             Then the market is let to do its thing on top of that very deliberate framework.

             The government also acts decisively to intervene if serious market imbalances occur.

             Its a free market, but not a laissez faire one.
             • Bill …

               5 November 2011 at 3:11 pm

               Yes, okay. But, the economy in all those examples is still motivated by profit. And any legislation designed to ‘contain’ the more egregious effects of the market economy are always subject to potential roll-back. And (within the context of representative governance) short of a command economy, there is no way to replace the motivation of profit with more powerful incentives designed to put (say) the environment at ‘front, center stage’.

               So there will always remain a ‘pull’ in the economy (regardless of legislation) that will ensure the principle motivation for producing something…or for deciding questions of distribution…is profit. And not only has profit no space for concern over social, personal or environmental well being, it produces and reinforces negative consequences in those areas.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 5 November 2011 at 3:16 pm

                 How about a market place where many major market actors are community/co-operatively/worker owned enterprises.

                 These democratic organisations will have an active interest in their neighbourhoods and local communities beyond earnings per share.
                 • Bill …

                   5 November 2011 at 3:35 pm

                   Why, if you go as far as you’re suggesting, retain the ‘market’ component of the economy? What would be the result of retaining a dynamic that demands and encourages zero sum competition for accumulation alongside a dynamic that seeks to encourage co-operation?

                   The likes of Cadbury and Bourneville, although privately owned, made genuine attempts to do good with the market rewards they earned. (They provided housing and education etc for workers and their chldren.)

                   End result? Cadbury, over time, became the same as other manufacturers, watered down and dumped its social ‘mission’ and was eventually….just recently… subject to a predatory take-over by Kraft.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     5 November 2011 at 5:54 pm

                     Globalisation of financial capital flows and the tying in of executive pay to stock prices, is what convinced many corporations to pursue the route of short term profits (and hence short term share prices rises and quarterly bonues) before all else.

                     NB privately or family held companies are not the same as community owned and worker owned companies.

                     Economies need markets – just not ‘free markets’.
                   • Bill …

                     5 November 2011 at 6:19 pm

                     You seem to be confusing the use of the term ‘market’ in relation to describing the rules that govern an economy’s activity and the geographical space where trading occurs.

                     And I know private entities are not the same as worker owned/controlled entities. Nevertheless, the example I used is a good one for showing how, with all the best intentions in the world, the market (ie, the market economy; that particular set of rules and norms that determine how trade will be carried out in our present economy) will subvert those good intentions.

                     Closer to home, I believe Ben Rumble tried to run a business with a stong social conscience component. In that case, my understanding is that Dick Smith Electronics launched a succesful take-over bid.

                     If workers collectives become more numerous, then they could trade with ‘normal’ businesses according the rules of the market economy and with each other and their attendant communities according to the principles or rules of a participatory economy.

                     Eventually, all going well, that economy would surpass the market economy in terms of access to resources and in people/workplaces adopting it’s norms of trade, production and distribution.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2

     5 November 2011 at 11:35 am

     What you’re missing is climate change itself. I think we are going to see a reduction in fossil fuel emissions as a direct result of extreme weather events making it essentially impossible to continue with business as usual. When you’re reeling from snow storm after drought after tornado after flood how are you supposed to get your oil to market?
     • Bill 4.2.1

       5 November 2011 at 12:19 pm

       So….what? After the shit hits the fan, it’ll all be okay because the shit hitting the fan will prevent us from behaving in ways that resulted in the shit hitting the fan?
       • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.1

         5 November 2011 at 12:20 pm

         Where did I say “it’ll all be ok”? Sucks eh.
     • mik e 4.2.2

       5 November 2011 at 1:46 pm

       on top of the sea easy
   • MrSmith 4.3

     5 November 2011 at 11:57 am

     I’m not sure we can ever get away from a market economy Bill, as even exchanging a leg of pork with my neighbor for eggs is a form of a basic market and where the market began, so trying to get rid of the market economy will only create a black market. I believe until people realize they are basically selfish and are taught as much nothing will change, we generally make changes because we see some benefit in it for ourselves/family or our children, but in the case of climate change it will most likely be to late before that realization happens unfortunately.
     • Bill 4.3.1

       5 November 2011 at 12:16 pm

       Exchange and trade are activities that take place within all economies….leg of pork for eggs etc.

       But, a market economy is not the same as a command economy (has different rules of trade, property arrangements, incentives etc) and neither of these economies are the same as a participatory economy.

       And each of these economic arrangements reward and encourage different patterns of behaviour. (eg, a market economy rewards degrees of selfishness, ruthless competition etc, whereas a participatory economy doesn’t, elevating and rewarding co-operation, solidarity etc instead)
       • MrSmith 4.3.1.1

         5 November 2011 at 2:41 pm

         A Participatory Economy “Human nature is often seen as too backward and selfish to allow a parecon to work. An underlying philosophy behind parecon is that people are affected by their environment and do selfish things largely due to the institutions they live in.” So we will go on racing blindly towards the cliff edge because as the environment continues to implode we will become no-doubt even more selfish. “Money” in a parecon would be more akin to a bookkeeping system than traditional currency. Money as it now exists would be abolished and instead replaced with a personal voucher system which would be non-transferable between consumers, and would be only usable at a store to purchase goods.” Albert and Hahnel’s moneteary system seems like a good idea until you get to trade between nations but I guess with a global economy this wouldn’t matter so much. Still some great ideas thanks Bill, I can see some of them but not all of them becoming reality before the end of the century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
         • Bill 4.3.1.1.1

           5 November 2011 at 2:56 pm

           Jeez, I hate wikipedia! If you want to explore the ideas of parecon, better to go here where you’ll find direct input from Hanhel and Albert rather than other peoples’ interpretations. http://www.zcommunications.org/topics/parecon

           From that wiki piece, I’m not sure where shops (stores) come into things. Parecon is (among other things) about facilitating the relationships between producers and consumers…not producers and merchants. Anyway.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 4.3.1.1.1.1

             5 November 2011 at 3:01 pm

             Don’t knock Wikipedia – your reasons for “hating” it are akshully reasons to admire it. Sure, you can read what the advocates of any idea have to say, but if you want to properly test any idea you have to engage with its detractors. Wikipedia does that, but it’s only a starting point, and the place to start is at the bottom, where the sources are.
5. Afewknowthetruth 5

   5 November 2011 at 10:40 am

   The lack of comment says it all.

   There are those who seek the truth and those who run from it.

   The Fermi Paradox suggests that shortly after intelligent life forms evolve they industrialise and then self-anihilate via the discovery of fossil fuels. Hence, we find no evidence of advanced civilisations elsewhere in the universe: intelligent life forms either do not industrialise or they anihilate themsleves via pollution.

   The fact is, all industrial economies are predicated on converting the carbon that was sequestered by nature tens of millions of years ago into carbon dioxide (which warms the Earth and acidifies the oceans). Self-destruction is written into the plan.

   The fact is, corporations and money-lenders took control of western societies centuries ago, and in recent times have been pouring billions of dollars a day into keeping the general popluace misinformed and deluded. The Rugby World up was a classic example of the kind of self-destructive mass hysteria and delusion that corporations are able to foment.

   So, given the choice between consumerism and the Earth becoming laregely uninhabitable by mid-century most people are so uninformed/misinformed they will vote for the dead planet option.

   There is a possibility that the collapse of industrial society which will occur over the next decade or so [as a consequence of Peak Oil] will reduce global population and resources extraction sufficiently to limit the rise in temperature.

   However, the scientific facts will not prevent political parties from continuously lying to the general populace about economic growth, balancing oif budgets, Kiwisaver, a better, brighter future etc.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1

     5 November 2011 at 10:56 am

     “The fact is, corporations and money-lenders took control of western societies centuries ago, and in recent times have been pouring billions of dollars a day into keeping the general populace misinformed and deluded.”

     …while simultaneously creating and maintaining the internet and providing all the real information to anyone who looks for it, and allowing anybody to publish anything they like on it, and even allowing publishers to pay the ones who make sense. They also have allowed the proliferation of publications called “scientific journals”, which subject matters of “fact” to rigorous analysis – “peer review” – to sort out the natural biases, from honest errors to one-eyed fanatical drivel. Of course, the one eyed fanatical drivel rarely makes it past peer review, which leads to conspiracist nonsense. And around we go. Good news that Kyoto might be working (for those who adopted it), but I have to say I’m waiting to see the evidence before I trust that conclusion.
     • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1

       5 November 2011 at 11:33 am

       They also have allowed the proliferation of publications called “scientific journals”, which subject matters of “fact” to rigorous analysis…

       Which most people don’t read. They read the corporatised MSM instead which is the main source of misinformation.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1

         5 November 2011 at 11:41 am

         It was always thus. For millenia most “knowledge” amounted to little more than suspicion and prejudice. However, while the people may not be paying attention, the market certainly is – witness recent pronouncements by the insurance industry. The military is equally well-informed, as are most government agencies.
         The mass media doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When the media narrative drifts too far from reality, it stops making sense to people, and they turn to alternative sources of information, which are abundant.
         • Afewknowthetruth 5.1.1.1.1

           5 November 2011 at 12:13 pm

           OAB.

           ‘When the media narrative drifts too far from reality, it stops making sense to people, and they turn to alternative sources of information’

           I cannot see how that mecahnism can possibly work when the bulk of the populace is completely disconnected from reality, having been trained from birth to be that way, to be slaves of the [industrial-financial-political] empire.. We live in a society in which the populace has been carefully trained to reject truth -that is spiritual truth, financial truth, economic triuth, political truth and environmental truth. Add to that the fact that people don’t actually want the truth (because it is painful and demlishes their belief system) and you have a perfect recipe for disaster: a populace that doesn’t want the truth government by controllers who don’t want them to know the truth. Aldous Huxley and George Orwell were so precient in ‘Brave New World’ and ‘1984’.

           The annual repetition of the 9/11 fabrications would be a good case in point. The official narrative has been completely disconnected from reality from day one, yet it has persisted for a decade. And anyone who challenges the utter nonsense in the official version still gets described as a ‘conspiracy freak’.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1.1

             5 November 2011 at 12:19 pm

             sigh…your whole narrative is based on a flawed premise. Buzz Aldrin is responsible for 9/11. People working in WTC7 had finally nailed the evidence that he alone faked the moon landings. Buzz didn’t need any help to do this, he just took a little of what you’re smoking and put it in the water supply.
     • Afewknowthetruth 5.1.2

       5 November 2011 at 11:51 am

       OAB

       ‘while simultaneously creating and maintaining the internet and providing all the real information to anyone who looks for it, and allowing anybody to publish anything they like on it, and even allowing publishers to pay the ones who make sense.’

       Yes, but do not forget that we live in societiy which is both self-censoring and is essentially scientifically illiterate. Given the option of a book which has a graph of climate change or oil depletion on the cover and a book with man running with a ball on the front cover, a large portion of the NZ populace would choose the book with the man running with the ball. (In Britain it would be soccer; in the US it would be baseball.) Just look at the piles of crud at supermarket check-outs that people buy.

       Having written several books on these topics I know an awful lot about the psychology of the market and how the system works. Most people are unreachable, and will remain so intil the system collapses (some after it has collapsed). My latest book emphasises that very point. The truth cannot possibly compete with the billions of dollars poured into advertisements that promote utter drivel on television, radio, shop windows etc. Add to that the misinformation churned out by distriact and regional councils on a daliy basis (‘sustainable growth’, ‘protecting the environment’, balh, blah, blah) …. it’s an unstoppable tide of drivel

       Talk to Robert Atack (at oilcrash.com ) :he’ll tell you how many thousands of DVDs he has handed put to people over nearly a decade, and how they never got round to putting them into a DVD player. I KNOW that every MP has been provided with masses on information on Peak Oil and Climate Change as have the candidates Ben Clark, Andrew Little, Peter Foster (and others). They totally ignore the informnation and carry on regardless.

       Talk to Derek Wilson, who has personally paid to an excellent book on the issues of the times, plus a copy of Blind Spot, to be supplied to every MP and mayor in NZ. They DO NOT want the truth. He’s now 87, and that was his final attempt to deliver truth, after decades of fighting the system which is corrupt and stupid at the top, and just plain stupid at the bottom.

       I recall a very telling comment on NBL made by someone who ran a DVD rental business: he put DVDs relating to the crusical issues of the times for FREE HIRE right by the door; people walked straight pst them and went to the feel-good entertainment they had to pay for.

       The vast majority of people who use the Internet DO NOT use it to carry out research into the crucial issues of the times. I have glanced screens at the local library and seen how people use that service to play online games, watch pop videos, carry out online gambling, rewatch sports events events etc.

       ‘Good news that Kyoto might be working ‘

       If you know the chemistry of climate science you will know that Kyoto was set up to fail and has failed, spectacularly, just as I wrote it would a decade ago. The few nations that have managed to reduce their emissions only did so because they expoorted most of their manufacturing sectors to Asia. The CO2 content of the atmosphere has risen by more than 2ppm per annum throughout the ‘Kyoto years’ and the rate of rise has been accelerating.
6. One Anonymous Bloke 6

   5 November 2011 at 12:08 pm

   “…rate of rise has been accelerating.”

   Yes, the article we are discussing points that out, in fact I do recall saying I’d like to see the evidence that countries that have ratified Kyoto really have reduced their emissions (that would have to be evidence, though, not one of your “books”). Would you mind citing some credible peer-reviewed sources for a single one of your assertions? It’s just that I find trawling through vanity publications quite tedious.

   Society is not “scientifically illiterate”; certain sections of it are. What’s it like in there?
   • Afewknowthetruth 6.1

     5 November 2011 at 12:27 pm

     OAB.

     I suggest you might try reading it before dismissing it.

     http://www.publishme.co.nz/shop/theeasyway-p-684.html

     However, if that is too hard you could watch the video here:

     http://guymcpherson.com/2011/09/couchsurfing-with-my-soapbox/

     or read this

     http://guymcpherson.com/2011/02/extinction-event/
     • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1

       5 November 2011 at 12:31 pm

       No no no no no! What part of “peer reviewed citation” don’t you understand?

       Seriously, the only reason you have information about climate change is because of Physics and Chemistry…the same Physics and Chemistry that NIST uses in its reports. Does the fucking great yawning logical chasm between you trusting one set of scientific conclusions but not another cause a massive cognitive dissonance much?
       • Afewknowthetruth 6.1.1.1

         5 November 2011 at 1:02 pm

         OAB

         If you had actually bothered to watch the video you would have seen that there were references to peer-reviewed items in journals, in particular the ‘bullet-proof; item in Climatic Change of 2009.

         But no, you can’t be bothered to do the reasearch necessary to become fully informed about the issues. You just prefer to try to score points by posting idiotic responses!

         In other words, you are just another time waster.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1.1.1

           5 November 2011 at 1:35 pm

           If you have citations cite them! I’m not interested in watching video’s – I’m far too savvy of editing techniques to waste my time on them, and even if the editing is honest, you’re still presenting me with opinion. If you have credible sources why do you have to hide behind all this spin?
           But honestly, if you believe the tripe you spout I don’t think you can tell a credible source from a hole in the ground. If you could you would have listed yours by now.
           • Afewknowthetruth 6.1.1.1.1.1

             5 November 2011 at 7:56 pm

             OAB

             The citations you require are in the video.

             I do not intend to pander to your laziness.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               6 November 2011 at 6:31 am

               Bzzzt! Better luck next time. I don’t “require” your citations at all – but your assertions are pointless without them, and it is up to you to make a case. A video simply doesn’t make a case, because of the issues of selective editing.
               Can’t you tell the difference between opinion and fact? I don’t need to hear Guy McPherson’s opinion, nor do I need to hear his interpretation of the graphs he shows slides of – I am quite capable of reading them myself.
               I note that McPherson has published extensively – and is cited widely – on climate-related species shift. I also note that recent results show that species are adapting a lot quicker than anticipated.
               This is not to undermine the value of his work, but it might speak to his inevitable (we all have one) bias.
7. RedLogix 7

   5 November 2011 at 12:12 pm

   Most people are unreachable, and will remain so intil the system collapses (some after it has collapsed). My latest book emphasises that very point. The truth cannot possibly compete with the billions of dollars poured into advertisements that promote utter drivel on television, radio, shop windows etc. Add to that the misinformation churned out by distriact and regional councils on a daliy basis (‘sustainable growth’, ‘protecting the environment’, balh, blah, blah) …. it’s an unstoppable tide of drivel

   As much as AFFKTT comes on like a stuck record on this… he’s absolutely correct. Most people, at least 85% or more… simply do not care. At all.

   In the last few years I’ve just given up. The people I mention this to, even in the most gentle and non-threatening way, simply refuse to engage. All you get is the sullen silence of someone who wishes you’d shutup. They know the truth, they know that what they are doing is fucking the planet, they don’t need you to remind them of it. But they simply do not want to know. And why should they? No-one else seems to, the wealthy and privileged certainly don’t, and if they attempt to make a real change in their own lives…they only invite ridicule and sneers from the ignorant.

   Al Gore’s movie was almost the game-changer, but the corporate filth employed to lie and distract suceeded perfectly. Congratulations should go to the soulless winners of that game… they got first prize, they got to keep feeding their carbon-fueled money addiction. The rest of us went along for the ride because it was well …. convenient.

   Sorry if this is a downer. But it is. I really cannot see a way out of this.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1

     5 November 2011 at 12:50 pm

     People need practical solutions, and they need governments that are prepared to make good decisions based on evidence not anecdote or advocacy.
     One of the few things you can admire about John Key is his appointment of Professor Sir Peter Gluckman as science advisor. Thus when Key stands up at town hall meetings and one of the rabid faithful asks him about climate change, he acknowledges that he thinks it’s real.
     It’s mostly window dressing though – Key is blithely ignoring Prof John Hattie, and Gluckman’s office has no statutory powers, but the precedent has been set, and it’s a good one.
     Or at least it looks that way – I’m probably missing some foul Tory aspect of the whole matter – call me a conspiracist 🙂
     • RedLogix 7.1.1

       5 November 2011 at 1:07 pm

       evidence not anecdote or advocacy.

       The evidence has been there for ages. Every year it becomes even more irrefutable and yet here we are still pretending that there is something to argue about…when there isn’t.

       Nah… the ‘evidence’ is irrelevant because most people simply refuse to either accept it or act on it.
     • MrSmith 7.1.2

       5 November 2011 at 3:06 pm

       So where was Sir Peter Gluckman after key said this? give you a hint, hiding up Key ass!
        
       Stephen Sackur: One of the country’s unique selling points, and your advertising slogan was all about this, was “100% Pure New Zealand”, the idea that you’re a greener nation than any other in the developed world – that already isn’t true, as your population does slowly rise, and it’s going to get worse. Dr Mike Joy, of Massey University, a leading environmental scientist in your country, said just the other day, “We are delusional about how clean and green we are.”
        
        
       John Key: Well that might be Mike Joy’s view, but I don’t share that view.
        
       Sackur: But he is very well qualified, isn’t he? He’s looked, for example, at the number of species threatened with extinction in New Zealand, he’s looked at the fact that half your lakes, 90% of your lowland rivers, are now classed as polluted.
        
       Key: Look, I’d hate to get into a flaming row with one of our academics, but he’s offering his view. I think any person that goes down to New Zealand …
        
       Sackur: Yeah but he’s a scientist, it’s based on research, it’s not an opinion he’s plucked from the air.
        
       Key: He’s one academic, and like lawyers, I can provide you with another one that will give you a counterview. Anybody who goes down to New Zealand and looks at our environmental credentials, and looks at New Zealand, then I think for the most part, in comparison with the rest of the world, we are 100% pure – in other words, our air quality is very high, our water quality is very high
       • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.2.1

         5 November 2011 at 3:15 pm

         Oh for goodness sake! Gluckman may or may not be the best science advisor for the position, and I agree – he failed to call Key out on his lies, but the point I’m making is that the position has been established.
         Personally, I’d like to see the select committee process beefed up in terms of fact checking – and I’d get serious about it – simply strike out all submissions based on advocacy, and allow only minimal weight to be attached to those based on anecdote.
         At the same time, I think more support should be given to submitters to help them make their case.
         • MrSmith 7.1.2.1.1

           5 November 2011 at 3:35 pm

           Gluckman is/was and may have been the right man for the job, but when Key put his foot in his mouth and on Joy’s neck Gluckman chose to say and do nothing publicly so showing he is part of the problem not the solution. key could have apologized for his comments but isn’t man enough to.
       • MrSmith 7.1.2.2

         5 November 2011 at 3:15 pm

          
         Foot note:
         More alarming still, perhaps, is Joy’s suggestion that scientists have become afraid of speaking out, for fear of losing funding: “He says people are scared to voice concerns for fear of political backlash, or the ‘Jim Salinger effect’, in which a top NIWA scientist lost his job in 2009 after speaking to the media.”
          
         • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.2.2.1

           5 November 2011 at 3:23 pm

           There are other reasons for concern. Brand Key has made it very clear that they are interested in stake-holder driven research, and this attitude has “trickled down” into the funding process. This is something that Gluckman has spoken out against, but he was very careful not to give specific examples. In fact, unless you were an informed observer you wouldn’t have noticed he was criticising his employers at all.
   • Bill 7.2

     5 November 2011 at 1:18 pm

     Supplying somebody with facts might be necessary, but certanly isn’t sufficient with regards ‘getting something done’. We need to be empowered before we can translate knowledge into action. And we’re not empowered, having ceded the authority for decisions and action to government.

     Meanwhile, as I argue here, http://thestandard.org.nz/climate-change-predictions/#comment-395746 (back up the thread at comment 3) our governments simply cannot be agents of the change we need.

     Insofar as solutions have to come from us, maybe something…something that is, or becomes, empowering, democratic, all encompassing and sustainable…. will take root and flourish from within one of the world’s present nascent Occupy occupations or movements.

     I can’t see any other prospects or potential at the moment.
   • Afewknowthetruth 7.3

     5 November 2011 at 1:22 pm

     RedLogix.

     ”I really cannot see a way out of this.’

     Nature has the solution in hand: remove the problem species and start again.

     The man-made solutions, of Powerdown and Permaculture remain as distant as ever (Bill Mollison began promoting Permaculure in the 1980s).
8. queenstfarmer 8

   5 November 2011 at 12:41 pm

   The actual increase falls outside the projected range

   Which further confirms (not that any more confirmation is needed) that the science is far from settled.

   If the latest figures and projections are correct (which, of course, no-one actually knows), what tangible difference will any Green Party policy make?
   • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1

     5 November 2011 at 1:12 pm

     Let’s just nip that lie in the bud right now shall we?
     Prof Gavin Schmidt’s “Unsettled Science”

     “…knowledge about science is not binary – science isn’t either settled or not settled. This is a false and misleading dichotomy. Instead, we know things with varying degrees of confidence…”

     The quoted research claims to show that Kyoto is working for those who ratified it – or rather, that their CO2 emissions have decreased. If true, this presents a direct example of government policy working.
     Of course we have a serious problem: the US congress has been bought, but I’m not sure what we as Kiwi’s can do about that – other than lend our support to the Americans that is.
     • queenstfarmer 8.1.1

       5 November 2011 at 3:41 pm

       I agree with Prof Schmidt’s comment. Hence, I said “far from settled” – meaning a non-binary scale. The problem is that certain “eco”-lobbyists have been perpetuating the binary model that the Prof warns against.

       And who has been spreading the “lie” (as you call it) about science being settled or not settled? Well that would include Al Gore: “The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers…”
       • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1

         5 November 2011 at 3:50 pm

         qtf, fyi, Al Gore is not a scientist. However, there are many aspects of climate science which are established facts; from a political perspective Gore was entirely correct.
         • queenstfarmer 8.1.1.1.1

           5 November 2011 at 4:29 pm

           Oh I see – so Al Gore was not entirely correct from a scientific perspective, but from a political perspective, Gore was entirely correct. 🙂
           • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1.1.1

             5 November 2011 at 4:45 pm

             Yes, and I’ll give you an example: Svante Arrhenius’ original observations on “the properties of carbonic acid” and Callender’s follow up work addressing the issue from a quantum mechanical perspective establish the Physical basis for the greenhouse effect beyond any significant uncertainty, and it is quite correct to regard those aspects of the science as “settled” for policy purposes.

             Global Circulation Models (GCMs) have correctly predicted observed effects, such as surface warming coupled with stratospheric cooling, nights warming more than days, winter warming more than summer, Arctic warming more than Antarctic, and it’s quite clear that the “skill” of these models is again, beyond any significant uncertainty, especially when you are familiar with the aphorism “all models are wrong, some models are useful”.

             So yes, Gore is right to draw attention to the established science, and in fact, that’s what we all say we want politicians to do – to make policy based on established facts. I don’t think that is a bipartisan issue.
   • mik e 8.2

     5 November 2011 at 1:52 pm

     I’d trust NASA , the Otago University and the 99% of climate scientists up from 98% any day over an idiot like you QSF.
     Our own government spent $32 million on research recently and have come to the same conclusion Those in denial are those with short term vested interests like your self!
     Funny that the deniers seem to be mostly chicago school cultists another debunked theory !
     • queenstfarmer 8.2.1

       5 November 2011 at 3:42 pm

       What am I in “denial” about? And what did I say that disputes something that Nasa, Otago Uni, et al said?
   • Draco T Bastard 8.3

     5 November 2011 at 3:26 pm

     Which further confirms (not that any more confirmation is needed) that the science is far from settled.

     No, it really doesn’t. The science is settled to within about 5% what isn’t settled is how much CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere which is increasing faster than projections and that’s feeding into faster temperature growth just as the science predicted.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 8.3.1

       5 November 2011 at 3:35 pm

       Akshully, Draco, how much CO2 we add will never be “settled” since it relies on economics and culture, not science.
       Climate sensitivity is the major area of uncertainty, but within that uncertainty there are many other uncertainties – the precise contribution of cloud feedback, methane clathrates, etc.

       There are certain certainties; there are things of which we are certain in our certainty.
       We also know there are certain uncertainties; that is to say we know there are some things of which we are uncertain.
       But there are also uncertain uncertainties – the ones we are uncertain whether we are uncertain.

       I’m not apologising to Donald Rumsfeld, the man’s a war criminal.
9. Barry 9

   5 November 2011 at 12:42 pm

   A couple of nits to pick.

   IPCC doesn’t make predictions they are projections and scenarios. If human emissions are above the scenarios values then the temperature values of the projections are likely to be exceeded. IPCC is made up of scientists not economists, and are not in a position to predict emission levels.

   BEST (Muller’s project) results weren’t compared with models. They were compared with aggregates of temperature measurement series. Muller assumed that other attempts (CRU, GISS and NCDC) were not doing it correctly and created his own aggregates using what seemed to him the correct rules. They were very much in agreement with the other results.
10. Afewknowthetruth 10

    5 November 2011 at 12:47 pm

    OAB.

    There you are, you have just proved the very point I made.

    When you don’t like what you hear, you don’t look actually engage your brain and examine evidence, you just dismiss the argument and label the truth-teller as a ‘conspiracy freak’ embelishing what you write with a bit of completely unconnected drivel.

    That is one of the many reasons why there is no hope for coming generations.

    By the way, yes, there is a mountain of evidence that the lunar landings were not what they have been portrayed to be. Nothing since 1975! I wonder why.

    According to G W Bush the US was to have had a renewed space program by to get back to the Moon by 2008 and mission to Mars by 2015. He s the one who lied anbout 9/11, of course, along with his poodle Tony B Liar.

    GWB was the liar who told the US populace there was going to be a hydrogen econiomy and that the US would become independent of forgeign oil (as did all his predecessors all the way back to Carter).

    I hope I am wrong but it seems to me I am dealing with yet another obedient slave of the empire. The world is full of them.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1

      5 November 2011 at 1:03 pm

      Present some evidence then – if your book cites any you will have the links to hand. But remember – peer-reviewed, credible academic journal, high citation ranking, all that “do your homework” stuff. ‘Cos I’m not doing it for you, and you’re the one making the assertions.

      And you akshully doubt the lunar landings? Akshully? Please, if you want to continue that thread, I suggest Open Mike is the place for it.

      Finally, for everyone else for whom this exchange is rapidly becoming tiresome, check out Snowball Earth – a little science cherry on the top of this pointless aircake.
11. Oscar 11

    5 November 2011 at 1:07 pm

    right

    Nothing to do with the fact that Puyehue Cordon Caulle has been erupting continuously for the last five months. Each week it erupts, it pumps out the same amount of CO2 and Sulfuric gas that the entire continental USA does in TEN years.
    So the last 20 weeks have taken care of USAs CO2 emissions for the next 2000 years.

    Then there’s El Hierro which has been erupting solidly for the last 3/4 weeks heating the immediate seas around it, pumping out all sorts of pyroclastic material and forming a new island.

    Then there’s the Son of Krakatoa which is rumbling away.

    Katla Volcano which is getting ground deformation underway in preparation for the big one. When Katla goes, it’s going to put out even more ash and CO2 than the neighbouring Eyafjallajokul.

    Lets not forget that CO2 emissions from Volcanic activity isn’t actually counted. Why not? Most likely as it’ll make all those cloud free models from the Intergovernment Panel of Climate Crock be seen for what they are. A scam. Because the CO2 scam is just that.

    The greens had it right all along, Carbon Monoxide is the bad evil gas. CO2 is needed for all carbon based lifeforms on earth to survive. Plants especially. The cycle is there. You’ve all been brainwashed into killing yourselves off.

    As for you warmists hope you’re ready to burn wood to keep warm

    The best way to live is renewable. Wood is renewable, lets just plant two trees for every one that is cut down and go back to burning wood. When those gas pipes freeze, there ain’t anything coming through to keep you warm.

    Leathers and Furs. Wood and twigs.

    [Pointless insults deleted…]

    [ All the reasons why this comment is utterly wrong have been pointed out to you many times before.

    You’ve a long record of posting drivel on this topic, I’ve no patience with it and I’m deeply reluctant to see The Standard used as a platform for it. I wouldn’t mind so much if you showed some sign of being able to sensibly engage others and learn, but you have never shown any sign of that. For this reason you will be moderated tightly…RL]
    • Afewknowthetruth 11.1

      5 November 2011 at 1:41 pm

      Oscar.

      ‘Nothing to do with the fact that Puyehue Cordon Caulle has been erupting continuously for the last five months’

      Absolutely correct. Nothing to do with volcanoes at all (well not within the time frame of human existence).

      Vocanoes have been erupting since the dawn of human history, adding CO2 which raises the temperature and aerosols which lower the temperature.

      The problem is entirely due to the ADDITINAL CO2 resulting from human activity that is connected with removing sequestered carbon from underground (coal, oil, natural gas) and converting that carbon into CO2.
      • Oscar 11.1.1

        5 November 2011 at 4:05 pm

        Ah, but that Co2 was already in the atmosphere some 10 million years ago. All that’s happened is that plant life has sequestered that carbon.
        We’re either going to burn it, or nature will burn it naturally.

        The difference being, we’re not planting trees to help soak up that CO2. and why would we when it costs money now to plant a tree!

        And pointless insult? How is it an insult to point out that the clever ones will be burning wood to keep warm while gas pipelines freeze.
        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.1

          5 November 2011 at 4:13 pm

          Oscar, you were grotesquely wrong in your assertions about volcanic CO2 emissions. “Nature will burn it naturally”? Citation please.
          Oh, and here’s a clue before you start: nature typically changes atmospheric CO2 concentrations over geological time-frames. Like the difference between an extremely slow motion punch to the face and the real thing.
12. One Anonymous Bloke 12

    5 November 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Oscar’s lie debunked
    “While there is uncertainty in the measurements–researchers estimate between 0.13 and 0.44 billion metric tons per year, with their best estimates between 0.15 and 0.26 billion tons–even the highest end of the range is dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions of 35 billion metric tons in 2010.”
13. John D 13

    5 November 2011 at 1:32 pm

    The BEST data confirmed the hiatus in warming for the last 10 years or so.

    Therefore we have about 0.8degC warming since pre-industrial times, little or no warming this century.

    There will have to be a sudden uptick in temperatures to get to this 6 degrees figure you mention.
    • RedLogix 13.1

      5 November 2011 at 1:42 pm

      More mendacious bs.

      You know perfectly well that the temperature data is noisy. There is absolutely no reason to think that the trend will smoothly rise year on year. It never has and no-one (except the idiot deniers) has ever suggested it should.

      All you are doing is repeating drivel from shameless hacks. Debunked here.
    • Afewknowthetruth 13.2

      5 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

      John D

      ‘The BEST data confirmed the hiatus in warming for the last 10 years or so.;

      How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that the summer of 2007 Arctic ice cover was the lowest ever (since records began) and that the winter ice cover of 2010-11 was the lowest ever (since records began)?

      Take particular note of the third graphic here, which has a very clear trend line downwards despite annual fluctuations.

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

      Would it not be a fair statement that you are fiull of shit?

      As for ‘There will have to be a sudden uptick in temperatures to get to this 6 degrees figure you mention.’ would it be a fair assumption that you are compleltey oblivious of the science of positive feedbacks, which are well understood by people who are well informed?
      • John D 13.2.1

        5 November 2011 at 7:16 pm

        Would it not be a fair statement that you are fiull of shit?

        Every sane person can look at the temperature record and see that the trend is tracking well below the most conservative IPCC projection. The longer this happens, the more likely that climate sensitivity to CO2 is low.

        I find it entertaining that the medical profession has now decided that NZ is not doing enough for “climate change”.

        Since when were the medical profession in the climate change industry?

        Maybe NZ, the only country in the world with an all gases, all sectors ETS, would like to entirely shut down its economy? That would save 0.11% of global CO2 emissions.

        The resulting poverty would certainly keep the medical profession busy doing their actual job rather than preaching at us about bloody climate change.
        • RedLogix 13.2.1.1

          5 November 2011 at 8:13 pm

          Every sane person can look at the temperature record and see that the trend is tracking well below the most conservative IPCC projection.

          If today was cooler than yesterday no sane person would conclude that “the trend is tracking well below the most conservative IPCC projection”. Why? Because one day is far too short a period to be meaningful.

          So is ten years. Too much uncertainty.

          The resulting poverty would certainly keep the medical profession busy doing their actual job rather than preaching at us about bloody climate change.

          The cost of doing something about carbon addiction are trifling compared to the costs of not acting.
          • John D 13.2.1.1.1

            5 November 2011 at 10:00 pm

            The cost of doing something about carbon addiction are trifling compared to the costs of not acting.

            Thats’s right. So we are fairly certain of the numbers being driven into fuel poverty due to green energy policies in Europe. We are also fairly certain of the numbers being killed by biofuel initiatives in Africa. I guess I am basing my numbers on the letters I get from charity organisations. You are absolutely convinced that these deaths are going to be less than those that will happen due to this so-called “carbon-addiction”.
            • Colonial Viper 13.2.1.1.1.1

              5 November 2011 at 10:05 pm

              We have to drive our economies away from fossil fuels now. You mention biofuels eg biodiesel but they too contain carbon.

              Without excess, cheap sources of fossil fuels, the sustainable human population on this planet returns to 1900’s levels. In effect, the problem we are facing as a civilisation is not greenhouse gas driven climate change, it is energy depletion. And it will bite very hard in the next 3-4 years.

              So yeah, the deaths you currently list are small fry.
              • John D …

                5 November 2011 at 10:19 pm

                There is no shortage of energy on this planet. Thorium, for example, has the potential to supply us with energy for thousands if not millions of years.
                • McFlock …

                  5 November 2011 at 10:33 pm

                  Hmm – so global warming has stopped becomes there is no shortage of energy on this planet.
                   
                  And the big point is that unless you are talking about packaging thorium reactors in the engine bay of a “hot-hatch”, there’s still the issue of getting the produced energy – when it’s produced in big enough quantities from your “potential” sources – to where we want it. Cars, planes and ships. 
                   
                   
                • Colonial Viper …

                  5 November 2011 at 10:37 pm

                  You are right only in theory. But there is no time left to design and build thorium reactors for widespread commercial use before energy depletion makes the technology impractical.
        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2.1.2

          5 November 2011 at 8:48 pm

          John D, citations lacking, so who cares what you think?
          • John D 13.2.1.2.1

            6 November 2011 at 12:44 pm

            Clive Best did a comparison of 1990 IPCC projections vs temp records here
            http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/plotcomp1.png

            Matt Ridley’s recent speech is transcripted here
            http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ridley_rsa_millar_speech_scientific_heresy.pdf
            and has a reasonable argument that we are currently on track for a 1.2 deg climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2

            Wood for trees shows a plot of 1995-2011 and 2000-2011 temp series here
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/trend

            Lucia Liljegren plotted this decades temps vs IPCC models here (with error bars)

            http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Since20011.jpg

            I am not drawing any conclusions or making any statistical analysis.
            You wanted citations.
            Here they are
            • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2.1.2.1.1

              6 November 2011 at 4:12 pm

              Wood for trees at least has some utility. Take a long time series – I chose to go from 1970 to the present day. Note that the period from 1987 to 1997 exhibited a similar flattening of the trend. Note also that the multi-decadal trend is up.
              Perhaps you have never heard this, John D, but what you are seeing is noise, not signal. The noise associated with the surface temperature record is such that anything less than a fifteen year series provides little useful information.
              • John D …

                6 November 2011 at 8:27 pm

                Perhaps you have never heard this, John D, but what you are seeing is noise, not signal

                and you, presumably have some empirical evidence to back up the claims made in the post of a 6deg warming by end of century?

                These projections are based on computer models that are hard-wired for high climate sensitivity to CO2 warming. None of the observational data supports this.

                The models “explain” the lack of warming by applying artificial fudge-factors called aerosols.
                • RedLogix …

                  6 November 2011 at 8:53 pm

                  You never ever answer the question do you?

                  It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that when considering climate trends, any time period less than 15 years (and 30 yrs being preferable) is meaningless.

                  Until you get your head around that you really have nothing useful to say.
                  • John D …

                    6 November 2011 at 9:11 pm

                    Until you get your head around that you really have nothing useful to say.

                    Please show me the physical evidence that supports a climate sensitivity of 6 deg.

                    When asked, I provide citations. I note that no one returns the favour.
                    • Macro …

                      6 November 2011 at 9:32 pm

                      For Pete’s sake JD READ the article! It’s all there…
                      Just in case you can’t find it – here is the relevant section.

                      “The world pumped about 564m more tons (512m metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009, an increase of 6%. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries, China, the US and India, the world’s top producers of greenhouse gases. It is a “monster” increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University …

                      In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit (2.4-6.4 Celsius) by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees (4 Celsius). …”

                      Note the second to last, and the last sentence.

                      Note also that humans are pumping MORE CO2 into the atmosphere than projected by the IPCC so the calculated climate sensitivity of 2.4 – 6.4 Celsius is most likely low.
                    • RedLogix …

                      6 November 2011 at 9:46 pm

                      No… you are the one challenging the science consensus. You are the one making the extraordinary claim that all these thousands of researchers, in many countries, in hundreds of institutuions are all either wrong or lying in unison. And have been doing so for decades.

                      It’s up to you to provide the physical evidence. You already made a stupid meaningless claim about the temperature trend of the last decade, so you now have a lot of ground to make up before I’d consider seriously any other claim you might make.

                      As for demanding citations…pfft… they are all over the web. Do your own homework.
                    • John D …

                      7 November 2011 at 12:01 pm

                      I will repeat it for you.

                      The citations you provide are based on computer models that are based on high climate sensitivity as an input.
                      There is no observational evidence to support climate sensitivity.

                      You may provide reports from a bunch of guys that “agree” with each other.
                      This is not observational evidence

                      Incidentally, pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere doesn’t change sensitivity. It just means we’ll reach the thresholds faster.
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      7 November 2011 at 12:10 pm

                      “There is no observational evidence to support climate sensitivity.”

                      An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity Gregory & Stoffer 2002.

                      Now, think, John, how did you come by the conclusion that no such observationally based estimate exists? Have you been trusting something you read on the intertubes without doing basic fact checking? Never mind it happens to all of us. Suck it in, treat it as a learning experience.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      7 November 2011 at 12:13 pm

                      Energy depletion is limiting resource use and smashing the global economy now. The trend will worsen over the next 5 years into something quite serious and undeniable.

                      Global climate change is really not a problem in that context.

                      NB John D calling some of those web links “citations” is pretty generous.
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      7 November 2011 at 12:22 pm

                      The link I provided before isn’t working – probably because it’s a pdf download – a google search for “An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity Gregory & Stoffer 2002” will take you to it.
                    • John D …

                      7 November 2011 at 12:38 pm

                      OAB, thanks for the link, which I’ll Google and look at later.

                      Oh and thanks for the patronising droning tone of your post. I realise that it is de rigeur when addressing someone of my world view, and it is much appreciated as it merely confirms my views of the alarmist cultists.

                      Superior, arrogant and smug.

                      I am really looking forward to the next few years as we dip into that solar minimum.

                      The schadenfreude will be unbearable
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      7 November 2011 at 1:09 pm

                      John D: “…that solar minimum…”

                      Oh yes, the one Frank Hill said this about: “We have not predicted a ‘little ice age’,” Hill said, speaking from an astronomical meeting in New Mexico. “We have predicted something going on with the sun.”

                      He’s probably a paid up member of the communist party. Let’s see what other solar physicists think eh: “Our research based on the behaviour of the sun over the past 9,000 years shows that there is indeed an 8% chance that we will return to Maunder Minimum conditions over the next 40 years. But there is no evidence at all that this will cause an ice age and, given the observed and predicted rise in greenhouse gases, we find it would do no more than slow global warming a little.” Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading

                      “So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of climate change will outstrip the sun’s ability to cool even in the coldest scenario; and in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the sun’s activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won’t have gone away.” Prof Joanna Haigh, atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London.

                      Do you know how lucky you are John, to have two such excellent learning opportunities on the same day? Can you remember how you came by the false impression you had of recent developments in solar physics? I wonder if it was the same people who’ve been lying to you about observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Careful, going out into the big wide world with consistently unreliable information can make you a danger to yourself and others.
        • lprent 13.2.1.3

          5 November 2011 at 10:32 pm

          One would have to conclude that your definition of sanity differs from most people, and damn near everyone working in the field of earth sciences.

          To me, asserting something without actual study and a basic understanding of statistics merely makes you look crazed. Not even a very competent one – no links, no time spans, no locations, no data.

          The only reason to answer is to call you an incompetent fool.
14. One Anonymous Bloke 14

    5 November 2011 at 1:44 pm

    According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2008 State of the Climate Report and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) 2008 Surface Temperature Analysis:

    Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
    The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ºF/decade or 2.9°F/century.
    The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005.

    As for the sudden uptick you refer to, Hansen and Sato addresses many of the issues around climate feedbacks.
15. infused 15

    5 November 2011 at 6:01 pm

    Until the biggest 3 do something, who gives a shit. NZ doesn’t matter.
    • RedLogix 15.1

      5 November 2011 at 6:11 pm

      In that case the solution is to break all the big nations up into very small ones of about 4m people each, and because they would be all so small none of them would matter… and climate change would just go away!

      Logical no?
      • infused 15.1.1

        5 November 2011 at 7:44 pm

        No. Retarded? Yes.
        • RedLogix 15.1.1.1

          5 November 2011 at 8:16 pm

          So then logically just being a small nation doesn’t make our contribution just go away does it?

          The point is that the “we’re too small to make any difference” argument is a dishonest diversion.
          • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1.1

            5 November 2011 at 8:38 pm

            Seems people have already forgotten about the 40 hour working week, the franchising of women, the Springbok tour, and the nuclear weapons ban. All New Zealand Firsts.

            Country and the people have become meek and rootless.
    • Afewknowthetruth 15.2

      5 November 2011 at 8:06 pm

      infused.

      There is a quality called leadership, which has been sadly lacking in NZ for several decades.
      • infused 15.2.1

        5 November 2011 at 8:11 pm

        We don’t need to take the lead on this.
        • RedLogix 15.2.1.1

          5 November 2011 at 8:14 pm

          The same answer everyone is giving.
      • One Anonymous Bloke 15.2.2

        5 November 2011 at 8:52 pm

        Akshully, I don’t think that the quality of our leaders is the problem – we have thrown up enough gems amid the dross. Our issues are cultural and media related.
16. randal 16

    5 November 2011 at 11:07 pm

    well the media is bent of course. where do you thnk most of the chlorine comes from and the heavy metal. the world is slowly being poisoned so by the time the temperature goes off the clock the rest of the environment will be pretty ugly too.
    and the sky is not blue anymore.
    its a shitty sort of grey.
17. TEA 17

    6 November 2011 at 12:06 pm

    The Greens and Doom merchants need to take a trip overseas and promote there religion into the real world not here in NZ to petty Pacific Islanders.

    Todays News
    China Will Finance Coal Power Plant Construction

    Domestic Economy Desk

    China is to contribute to the construction of the first coal power plant in Tabas.
    Announcing this, Deputy Energy Minister Mohammad Behzad told Mehr News Agency that the aforesaid power plant will be constructed at a cost of $1billion.
    He said once the power plant comes on stream, it will generate 650 megawatts of electricity.
    Also, managing director of Iran Power Development Company said Tabas coal power plant will be constructed with Chinese financing.
    Majid Salehi predicted that the project is expected to be inaugurated by the end of Fifth Five-Year Economic Development Plan (2015).
    According to geological studies, the coal reserves, which extends over 700 square meters, are located in Mazino, Kal Shoor, Northern and Southern Koochek Ali.
    Behzad also disclosed that Zarand power plant in Kerman will be converted into a coal-fueled unit at the cost of 100 billion rials ($10 million).
    He predicted that the project is expected to become operational by next summer.
    Close to 100 million liters of furnace fuel oil is consumed in Zarand power plant on annual average.
    Although, Zarand power plant was constructed near a coal-cleaning factory in 1973, but it has not used the coal fuel yet.

    Oil Deal
    Meanwhile, director general for international affairs of National Iranian Oil Company said Iran may sign a new contract with China to sell crude oil to the East Asian country.
    Mohsen Qamsari noted that Iran is currently exporting 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil to China and the country’s demand for crude oil will further increase by 2012.
    “In addition [to China], Southeast Asian countries like Singapore and littoral states of the Persian Gulf are the most important markets for Iran’s fuel oil,” Mehr News Agency quoted him as saying on Friday.
    When asked about possible substitution of Iran’s oil for Syria’s in the Mediterranean region, the official stated that Syria is currently exporting a daily average of 150,000 bpd of crude oil.
    “Since Syria’s crude oil is heavier than Iranian crude, Iran cannot take Syria’s place in oil markets,” Qamsari added.
    He noted that Iran has received no requests from foreign companies for canceling oil purchase contracts, adding that the country’s crude oil exports continue as usual.
    Iran is OPEC’s second largest oil producer and the fourth largest crude oil exporter.
    The country holds the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves and the second-largest natural gas reserves.
    New onshore oil and gas fields were recently discovered in southern and western parts of Iran with reserves of 500,000 million barrels of oil and five trillion cubic feet gas respectively.

    Now Greenies try shutting these buggers down.
    • RedLogix 17.1

      6 November 2011 at 12:35 pm

      Yes we will shut these buggers down once we believe in our power to do so.
18. Ten Miles Over 18

    6 November 2011 at 1:05 pm

    Well it seems the developing nations are the biggest emitters, what policies are proposed to deal with this fact?
    http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/05/img/20090829_ibuki_1e.gif
19. Steve Wrathall 19

    6 November 2011 at 1:34 pm

    Meanwhile, back in the real world. The sea level is spectacularly failing to accelerate its moderate, non-alarming ~3mm/year rise.
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    If you warmists want to tear up $100 bills thinking that this will decrease the temperature of the world by a few hundreths of a degree in 100 years time, be my guest. Just get your fingers out of my pocket. In other words, take your ETS and shove it.
    • Macro 19.1

      6 November 2011 at 2:02 pm

      And the reason is……
      Gez Steve you are incorrigible! Lets all pretend it just isn’t happening.
      (For those who DON’T know why average sea level DROPPED 6 mm last year, (Steve does because he linked to the source – but only wants to tell you HALF the story) was because with such high atmospheric temperatures, and warm sea surface temperatures, ocean evaporation was extreme – leading to one of the WETTEST years on record. A lot of that rain fell on land and has still to find its way back into the ocean. Such events are not a cause for satisfaction and “I told you so!” comments by Steve W. Sea levels will continue to rise, and the projections are now becoming more clear (as this post indicates) that it will be more rather than less.)
      • Steve Wrathall 19.1.1

        6 November 2011 at 9:11 pm

        Macro and OAB, your prophesies of accelerating sea level rises remain just that: propesies. How long can the sea level rise continue on at the non-alarming rate of 3 mm/year before you admit that your climate catastrophe has been cancelled?
        As for your advise that I pay my tax, I intend to (like I’ve got a choice?). Even massively stupid and pointless ones like the ETS, which hit the poorest the most to advantage ticket-clippers with an eye for the main chance.
        • Macro 19.1.1.1

          6 November 2011 at 10:02 pm

          It doesn’t sound like much does it Steve.. 3.2 +/- 0.04mm per year. But that’s just the start.

          Of course you don’t want to talk about the energy imbalance, and the fact that we have already committed to more warming by loading the Atmosphere with all that extra CO2 – but then you really don’t understand the science do you? Yes I know you are a science technician. But your complete inability to grasp even the basics of Climate Science indicates a very narrow scientific knowledge.

          As a matter of interest – where do you think all that water from the now rapidly melting Greenland Icecaps, the vanishing Canadian Ice caps (Almost 50% reduced), and the West Antarctic Ice shelf is going? Is the calculation that the Greenland Ice Caps melted would raise sea levels by up to 7m wrong? If so you show me?
20. One Anonymous Bloke 20

    6 November 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Steve Wrathall, obey the law, pay your taxes.

    On sea-level rise, the accelerating melt of polar ice, outlined by the U.S. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, (abstract) (summary) will cause an acceleration in sea-level rise.

    I like your honesty, though. Civil disobedience can be an expensive option, and may affect your employment prospects. I expect you’ll be going Galt any day now, eh.
    • John D 20.1

      6 November 2011 at 3:34 pm

      Steve Wrathall, obey the law, pay your taxes.
      I was under the impression that the ETS wasn’t a tax. It is an emissions trading scheme that is designed to be a price signal” to move us away from fossil fuels.

      Is there any evidence that it is working? National claim it has, in one year of high hydro output, but I don’t take one data point as proof.

      I’m struggling to see how left-wingers, supposedly in support of the poor and disadvantaged, can support a scheme that transfers wealth from joe public and transfers it to corporate forestry owners and renewable electricity generators through windfall profits.

      There has to be a better way, surely?
      • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1.1

        6 November 2011 at 3:41 pm

        Yeah I’m fairly skeptical of carbon trading – cap and trade has worked in the US, for example to help improve air quality, but applied across international borders – I think there’s too much potential for cheating.
        I think a direct tax (polluter pays) on carbon dioxide emissions might achieve better results.

        Having said that, the study quoted above claims that Kyoto is working for those who ratified it – again I’m skeptical of this claim, but if it is true perhaps it indicates that cap and trade is a viable mechanism.

        Far better minds than mine come down on either side of the fence.
      • RedLogix 20.1.2

        6 November 2011 at 10:09 pm

        Straight carbon taxes would have been a far simpler and likely more effective route to take. But the right wing parties all universally rejected them…you have to ask why?
        • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1.2.1

          7 November 2011 at 7:53 am

          I’ve given up trying to figure out what passes for logic on the right – and I think their responses have been far from universal. On the one hand we have Margaret Thatcher’s insistence that the world tackle the problem, on the other we see how this initial commitment has been derailed by witless truthers.
          I’ve argued this point with wingnuts before: the ones who accept the science, for the most part I think they genuinely believe cap and trade works, and will point to improvements in US air quality to make their case.
          A pollution tax makes more sense to me, but perhaps that’s just my bias showing.
          • John D 20.1.2.1.1

            7 November 2011 at 4:50 pm

            Even if we shut down the entire NZ economy, shut the gates and turn the lights off, it will not make a scrap of difference as NZ is only 0.11% of the world’s emissions, and no one else has any intention of doing anything anyway.

            If you really believe all this alarmist crap, why don’t you eshew all forms of modern life? I haven’t seen any sign of my green-voting friends doing it. They are all still driving cars and taking overseas trips.
21. One Anonymous Bloke 21

    7 November 2011 at 8:19 pm

    “this alarmist crap”

    Haven’t the above examples taught you anything, John? Let’s be completely clear about something – science is not a matter of belief – and as for “crap”, if you’ve got any substantive criticism let’s hear it (perhaps the third time’s a charm), but cowering behind hyperbole just makes you look foolish.

    I’ll give you a specific example. We see the quote above puts the chance of a new solar minimum at around 8% (it would be interesting to know the confidence interval too, but you can’t have everything), which you were all excited about, but the chance that Physics and Chemistry are wrong about the greenhouse effect is approaching zero. The world is warming, precisely as predicted, and here’s the thing see – if the observed warming isn’t the greenhouse effect you have to come up with an explanation that matches all known results the way Physics and Chemistry do. Why is the stratosphere cooling while the surface is warming John? Why are nights warming more than days? Winter more than summer? The poles more than the equator? The Arctic more than the Antarctic? All these observed phenomena were first predicted theoretically over 100 years ago.

    The market is changing; trying to cling onto old paradigms will just get you buried (metaphorically speaking). Challenge is opportunity, but all that aspirational rhetoric seems to have abandoned you just when you need it most.

Links to post

1. Two headlines to ponder « The Standard: posted on 10 November 2011 at 4:18 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS