"like Camorons wife"

Snicker. A deft, ever so British, twist of the stiletto. Nicely done, Rog.

Tom says:
That would be a tough proposition to prove, Rog. Care to try?

Easy, check the proportion of papers on atmospheric radiative balance from climate scientists compared to papers on hydrology, evaporation and convection.

"Easy, check the proportion of papers on atmospheric radiative balance from climate scientists compared to papers on hydrology, evaporation and convection."

I'm afraid you lost me there, Rog.

"Unless you provide a breakdown of the projected costs of shutting down Australia's coal and mineral based energy intensive economy, and some proof that increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide from 0.028% to 0.045% of the atmosphere is "potentially catastrophic", I'm going to treat this as the EMPTY RHETORIC it is."

Read here:

http://www.treasury.gov.au/lowpollutionfuture/report/html/06_Chapter6.asp

Another Australian hydrologist with more clue than the average climate scientist is Robert Ellison:

There are standing patterns in the atmosphere and oceans – those at the poles being the key to higher latitude changes. There are 2 ways of predicting rainfall. One is the initialised models that lose their way within a week at most. The other is to look at standing patterns in oceans and atmosphere because these persist for decades.

The Arctic Oscillation influences the path of storm tracks spinning of the polar front in the Northern Hemisphere. The more recent trend to negative values pushing storms further to the south. .

http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html

http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/atm/ao.php

The variability in the AO is driven by the temperature of the stratosphere – which is the determined largely by UV warming of ozone.

‘During the descent into the recent ‘exceptionally’ low solar minimum, observations have revealed a larger change in solar UV emissions than seen at the same phase of previous solar cycles. This is particularly true at wavelengths responsible for stratospheric ozone production and heating. This implies that ‘top-down’ solar modulation could be a larger factor in long-term tropospheric change than previously believed, many climate models allowing only for the ‘bottom-up’ effect of the less-variable visible and infrared solar emissions. We present evidence for long-term drift in solar UV irradiance, which is not found in its commonly used proxies. In addition, we find that both stratospheric and tropospheric winds and temperatures show stronger
regional variations with those solar indices that do show long-term trends. A top-down climate effect that shows long-term drift (and may also be out of phase with the bottom-up solar forcing) would change the spatial response patterns and would mean that climate-chemistry models that have sufficient resolution in the stratosphere would become very important for making accurate regional/seasonal climate predictions. Our results also provide a potential explanation of persistent palaeoclimate results showing solar influence on regional or local climate indicators.’

There is a similar effect in the South Hemisphere which has an impact on cold water upwelling in the eastern Pacific – and thus the evolution of ENSO. Thus a global impact on cloud, biology, hydrology and surface temperature.

‘So there are natural causes of decadal, centennial and even millennial variability in hydrology (and climate) on which we clearly do not have much of a handle – and it is as a result impossible to convincingly disentangle causation. It echoes the other problem – there clearly should be some warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases but how can you tell by how much?

Arapiles says:
"I don't have much time for some of the wilder claims being made by some climate change proponents"


But then Arapiles says:
"the consequences of not acting are potentially catastrophic"

Arapiles, that is the wilder claim made by some climate change proponents.

Here is Western Australian vine grower, Winemaker and climate observer Erl Happ's response to Robert Ellison's comment above:

If you plot the aa index of geomagentic activity against the Southern Oscillation Index you will discover that, broadly speaking the relationship is inverse. High levels of geomagnetic activity are associated with El Nino warming.

However, the relationship is not completely deterministic. It depends partly upon the level of solar irradiance. At the low point of the solar cycle when irradiance is weak it takes very little geomagnetic activity to produce a response (El Nino). At the high point of the cycle the ionosphere is most inflated. Any change in the electric field that affects the ionosphere at this time can produce only minor change in the distribution of neutrals so burgeoning irradiance is frequently associated with La Nina. You will appreciate the paradox but many can not get over the idea that higher irradiance must mean a warmer Earth. It is in fact precisely the opposite.

It is change in the distribution of neutrals between the poles and other latitudes that modulates the activity of the polar night jet so determining the concentration of ozone in the polar stratosphere. It is so because the night jet brings erosive nitrogen into the upper stratosphere at the poles.

The troposphere and the stratosphere are coupled in one overturning circulation in the polar atmosphere. This is strongest in winter when there is the polar stratosphere receives no light from the sun. Effectively, the tropopause is elevated to 10hPa or higher. Under that circumstance both the troposphere and the stratosphere support convection. The overturning circulation brings stratospheric ozone into the troposphere. As you know, ozone is a potent absorber of infrared emanating from the Earth. The result is tropospheric warming, increased geopotential heights throughout the vertical profile and falling surface atmospheric pressure. The geography has been well documented by others in the studies of the ‘annular modes’. But the following bit is new, and easily documented. As pressure falls, cloud disappears and the surface receives more sunlight. The influence of ozone is spread equator-wards by the counter-westerlies that are the return circulation of the surface south-westerlies in the northern and the north-westerlies in the southern hemsipheres.

Above is the nutshell version. The comprehensive description can be found at http://www.happs.com.au/images/stories/PDFarticles/TheCommonSenseOfClimateChange.pdf

I am currently going through the paper to try and make sure that the exposition is clear. I confidently predict that it will earn me an honorary PhD to be awarded posthumously.

There is more work to be done. Hopefully, I can find a useful precursor that indicates the likely movement in the SOI index. But, bear in mind that the activity of the sun is unpredictable. Look at the explosive increase in solar irradiance in May. The task is more difficult in low amplitude solar cycles like Cycle 14. According to Lief, cycle 24 could be similar.

Really, the way in which the cloud is forced within the Earths atmosphere, so changing surface temperature on all time scales should not be a matter of dispute. That which is forcing the atmosphere so as to shift atmospheric mass between high and low latitudes is more difficult to explain. The existence and the nature of the shift should not be the subject of debate. It is documented in the AO and AAO indices. The inter-hemispheric shift needs more work. Its tied in with the long term decline in atmospheric mass in the high latitudes of the southern hemisphere. But, the dynamics of all this is where the electric universe comes in, reinforced by the multiplier effect from the Antarctic circulation, in turn a product of the distribution of land and sea..

Re the comment from Mr Ellison:

“So there are natural causes of decadal, centennial and even millennial variability in hydrology (and climate) on which we clearly do not have much of a handle”. My comment: Speak for yourself. It’s not that difficult.

“and it is as a result impossible to convincingly disentangle causation”. My comment: Getting much closer than you think. Look harder.

“there clearly should be some warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases but how can you tell by how much”. My comment: Not on a planetary scale.

If you really want to get a grip on these phenomena don’t rely on others. Examine the history of the atmosphere for yourself. It can be found at: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl It’s a gripping story.

================================================

I have some of the answers to Erl's remaining questions. The ~75 year cycle in the Arctic oscillation is explained in the papers detailed here:
http://ansatte.hials.no/hy/climate/defaultEng.htm

The prediction of solar activity levels at the decadal timescale is within my grasp. The short term fluctuations which are the key to seasonal Weather forecasting are the holy grail. I'm working on it using a technique developed 20 years ago by a researcher who died in 2004. It doesn't help that a phd climate science student from Potsdam took off with his papers and they haven't surfaced since.

"Arapiles says:
focussing locally, there's clearly something going on given the changes in rainfall patterns in parts of Australia.

Yes Arapiles, it's called "Weather"."

No, it's called drastic changes in rainfall patterns: remember this graph?

Edited by Arapiles on 06/19/2011 04:01:13 MDT.

"Don't you remember berating me many pages ago on this thread when I mentioned some cooling events by telling me that anything less than a 30 year trend was "just weather"?"

No, I don't remember it because I've never said it or written it. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?

As to "proof", there is of course no certainty, just the well-considered views of thousands of climate scientists. But I'd rather not wait to find out if 0.045% actually is catastrophic - which is the point of the whole debate.

Edited by Arapiles on 06/19/2011 04:42:05 MDT.

"Unless you provide a breakdown of the projected costs of shutting down Australia's coal and mineral based energy intensive economy, and some proof that increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide from 0.028% to 0.045% of the atmosphere is "potentially catastrophic", I'm going to treat this as the EMPTY RHETORIC it is."

Ah, thanks Brendan - this from the mouths of Australia's official economic rationalists:

"Large reductions in emissions do not require reductions in economic activity because the economy restructures in response to emission pricing.

Australia’s aggregate economic costs of mitigation are small. Costs to sectors and regions vary widely: growth in emission-intensive sectors slows, and growth in low and negative emission sectors accelerates.

Real household incomes continue to grow, although households face higher prices for emission-intensive products, such as electricity and gas.

All scenarios show Australia, at the-whole-of-economy level, can achieve substantial emission reductions with relatively small reductions in economic growth (Chart 6.1)."

On a global scale Australia actually produces negligible amounts of CO2 so even if we did simply turn off our economy and reduce our GDP to $0.40, the world would still warm and Australia would still be affected by it. But as Treasury says, the doomsday scenario is not necessary.

Edited by Arapiles on 06/19/2011 04:43:09 MDT.

Tallbloke says:
Yes Arapiles, it's called "Weather"."

Arapiles resonds:
No, it's called drastic changes in rainfall patterns: remember this graph

Tallbloke replies:
No, it's called cherrypicking. Let's widen your map to the whole of Australia and look at the last three years to date:

.

Over which time your corner of Aus has had thoroughly average precipitation. Of course, during that period you suffered a bad drought and heavy flooding. See how easy it is to cherry pick data end points to suit your agenda?

Australia has long been a land of multi-year droughts and floods, and will be for as long as the strait between Cape Horn and Antarctica is open.

Nothing drastic, nothing 'unprecedented' and nothing anyone can do about it, except take sensible measures such as building the right number of reservoirs for the population and the conditions it lives in.

Edited by tallbloke on 06/19/2011 13:47:29 MDT.

Arapiles says:

No, I don't remember it because I've never said it or written it. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?

Possible, it's been a long thread. :-)

As to "proof", there is of course no certainty,

There isn't even a hypothesis which makes sense. What happened to the 'tropospheric hotspot', the essential fingerprint of human caused warming? Where is the alleged co2 warming since 1998 anyway? Why is sea level rise slowing down? If adverse 'natural variation' accounts for the hiatus in co2 driven warming, how much does the estimate of co2's ability to cause warming need to be revised downwards, given the obvious implication that 'natural variation' previously contributed to the warming before it acted in the opposite direction?

just the well-considered views of thousands of climate scientists.

It was ever thus. Thousands of climate scientists acting as a herd in my opinion. Real science doesn't progress by reaching consensus, but by challenging the currently held theory.

But I'd rather not wait to find out if 0.045% actually is catastrophic - which is the point of the whole debate.

Some are fearful of what the future holds and want everyone else to pander to their irrationality. Others want to control human activity through the application of state dictated behaviour changing policy. There is no mandate for any of it. I want to see some real empirical proof of their outlandish claims, not some toytown computer model's output, before I agree to having the economy of the west stopped down thanks.

Reading the guff the Australian govt has written about their belief in a heavily energy tax burdened society flourishing, I'm now more convinced then ever that they couldn't run a pi55 up in a brewery, let alone manage a national economy labouring under self inflicted handicaps applied against all logic and reason.

"There isn't even a hypothesis which makes sense."

'just the well-considered views of thousands of climate scientists.'

"It was ever thus. Thousands of climate scientists acting as a herd in my opinion. Real science doesn't progress by reaching consensus, but by challenging the currently held theory."

This thread probably should have died of technical limitations when it reached 100 pages, because we've come full circle. The same arguments are being trotted out on both sides and the same ad hominem aspersions being cast, both directly and indirectly as in the case of the "herd" of climate scientists being denigrated in absentia. And now the Australian Govt. At least that is something new.

It is difficult for me personally to evaluate the data and hypotheses you inundate us with, Rog. It would take me years of study to get to the point where I could either agree or disagree with your arguments based on my own knowledge and analytical skills. Absent that eventuality, I end up wondering why you seem to be part of a very small minority who not only dispute that the earth's climate is warming at an alarming rate, with potentially disastrous consequences, but impugn the character and motives of those who do. It is not enough, IMO, to dismiss the lot of them as group thinkers. I have no reason to doubt they are as sincere and confident in their research as you, and every bit as well qualified. It is possible that some of them might even be better qualified. Nor do I suscribe to conspiracy theories, either economic or political in nature. The world simply is not in synch to that degree, politically or economically.

What troubles me to a far greater extent is that all of the discussion, seems to center around the potential consequences to the Western economy that will ensue from ignoring the impact of warming or seeking to mitigate it, depending on one's views. There has been no mention of the human cost for some of the world's poorest, most vulnerable populations should the global warming hypothesis turn out to be true. I am speaking here specifically of Vietnam, Bangladesh, Thailand, and various island groups.

+1 Tom

We in the West emit the CO2

Bangladesh and so forth may suffer the consequences

I agree with Rog that we understand very little about historical climate change and the evidence that CO2 has affected anything is thin.

However, CO2 levels are higher than any time in the last 500,000 years, which has been 180 to 300 PPM range.

Rog says there could have been decade periods of up to 330 or 340 PPM but that doesn't make any sense. You could have rapid increases from volcanic activity but it takes a long time for it to come back down.

We are at 380 PPM, higher than any time in the last 500,000 years. And if you do the simple calculation of how much coal and oil has been burned - this is why the CO2 level has increased. There is very little scientific disagreement about this.

The question is, what will be the effect of this?

Who knows, but it's crazy to just ignore it and keep burning coal and oil as fast as possible until we find out the consequences.

Once this is all published, we can look at the references and catch up quicker.

"Reading the guff the Australian govt has written about their belief in a heavily energy tax burdened society flourishing, I'm now more convinced then ever that they couldn't run a pi55 up in a brewery, let alone manage a national economy labouring under self inflicted handicaps applied against all logic and reason."

This thread is worth it just to hear you maligning the Australian Treasury, who are the driest of economic rationalists. And I could point to Australia's economic performance vis a vis the UK over the last 15 years, but I suspect it's not worth the effort.

"There has been no mention of the human cost for some of the world's poorest, most vulnerable populations should the global warming hypothesis turn out to be true. I am speaking here specifically of Vietnam, Bangladesh, Thailand, and various island groups."

+1

"This thread probably should have died of technical limitations when it reached 100 pages, because we've come full circle."

+1

Actually I don't think we've come full circle - I don't think we've moved at all.

So, on a day on which a group of 200 Australian climate scientists met with Parliament over their concerns about the death threats they've been getting I have posted my last on this thread.

Tom says:
The same arguments are being trotted out on both sides and the same ad hominem aspersions being cast, both directly and indirectly as in the case of the "herd" of climate scientists being denigrated in absentia. And now the Australian Govt.

For balance you could mention the slurs made against the hydrologist and all those fighting the AGW promoters hijack of science and logic by labelling them as being like holocaust deniers. But I've done it for you, so no need.

It is possible that some of them might even be better qualified.

Some of them are undoubtedly better qualified in their small corner of speciality, but I think my training in assessing scientific theories provides me with a wider perspective.

Nor do I suscribe to conspiracy theories, either economic or political in nature.

That's just another slur to add to the list Tom.

all of the discussion, seems to center around the potential consequences to the Western economy that will ensue from ignoring the impact of warming or seeking to mitigate it, depending on one's views.

Well, as you said, it's not easy to assess the validity of the scientific lines of evidence, so we tend to end up discussing the consequences of accepting or rejecting them. The cheapest and most sensible solution is to be ready to adapt to climate change given that no-one knows whether global temperature will rise or fall in the coming years, nor whether reducing human generated co2 will either reduce the airbourne co2 fraction or reduce temperatures.

There has been no mention of the human cost for some of the world's poorest, most vulnerable populations should the global warming hypothesis turn out to be true.

Measures are already in place to prevent these countries developing, ensuring their inhabitants die prematurely of cookfire smoke inhalation while Sven Teske is happy to include the ~10% of the worlds energy use those cookfires represent as part of the "renewable energy mix" in his aim to have renewables providing 80% of need by 2050.

Jerry says:
We in the West emit the CO2

China is the biggest emitter, India will overtake the US soon. Neither of these countries believe the AGW hypothesis and they will not sign emission reduction treaties. That is the realpolitik of the situation. History shows that wealthier, better developed countries become cleaner countries, eventually.

I agree with Rog that we understand very little about historical climate change and the evidence that CO2 has affected anything is thin.

Thank you.

Arapiles says:
I could point to Australia's economic performance vis a vis the UK over the last 15 years, but I suspect it's not worth the effort

Please do. Australia has done well because it is not a clapped out 2000 year old economy which shut down its mines to please the whim of a despotic prime minister.

I hope I won't be pointing to Australia in 15 years time and lamenting how a young vibrant nation threw away its opportunity to be a shining light and beacon of hope in the English speaking world.

I don't think we've come full circle - I don't think we've moved at all.

You're wrong about that. The BPL massive is better informed about the issue than it was, and the ratio of climate realists vs climate doomsters has improved markedly. This isn't just down to me, but has been ably assisted by the repeated foot shootings the AGW movement has inflicted on itself with climategate, glaciergate, windmillgate and other such mirth-filled escapades. The wheels have been coming off the wagon, thanks to the continuous insistence on the correct application of the scientific method and the scrupulous following of procedures for assessment demanded by diligent and attentive people beyond this website as well.

So, on a day on which a group of 200 Australian climate scientists met with Parliament over their concerns about the death threats they've been getting I have posted my last on this thread.

Sceptics get their fair share of death threats too. It's amazing what people will write in email and on the net they'd never have the cojones to say to someone's face or try to do to them with a knife.

The carbon flame war rumbles on.

On a lighter note though, another funny climate cartoon from my mate Josh:

.

As Mike Reid pointed out, there are other costs to playing the AGW game apart from financial ones. Lets not find ourselves in a position where we ruined the planet in order to save it eh?

Edited by tallbloke on 06/21/2011 06:10:01 MDT.

"For balance you could mention the slurs made against the hydrologist and all those fighting the AGW promoters hijack of science and logic by labelling them as being like holocaust deniers. But I've done it for you, so no need."

The balance is embedded in my post that you refer to. Note that I referred to both sides.

It is possible that some of them might even be better qualified.

"Some of them are undoubtedly better qualified in their small corner of speciality, but I think my training in assessing scientific theories provides me with a wider perspective."

Do you truly believe you are the only generalist in the field?

"Measures are already in place to prevent these countries developing, ensuring their inhabitants die prematurely of cookfire smoke inhalation while Sven Teske is happy to include the ~10% of the worlds energy use those cookfires represent as part of the "renewable energy mix" in his aim to have renewables providing 80% of need by 2050."

And so we should add to their miseries by drowning a far greater number or causing them to die from disease, starvation and conflict for the remaining inhabitable land?
I might add that mitigations measures are deing implemented to decrease the number dieing from smoke inhalation from cow dung and charcoal fires, by generation of methane cooking gas produced by composting cow manure. I have seen this in action on trips to India.

"China is the biggest emitter, India will overtake the US soon. Neither of these countries believe the AGW hypothesis and they will not sign emission reduction treaties."

This says nothing about the role of the Western developed countries in getting us to the point we are at now. And China is proceeding at breakneck speed to develop clean energy sources and has far stricter emission standards in plce for automobiles.

"Nor do I suscribe to conspiracy theories, either economic or political in nature.

"That's just another slur to add to the list Tom"

That is not a slur at all, Rog, merely a reference to statements made by you and Nick in previous posts. You believe them, I don't.

Edited by ouzel on 06/20/2011 14:03:42 MDT.

"China is the biggest emitter, India will overtake the US soon. Neither of these countries believe the AGW hypothesis and they will not sign emission reduction treaties."

And the less developed countries also will be key to controlling CO2

I believe their argument is that to become developed, we produced a lot of CO2. They want to become developed also, so they want to be able to produce CO2. It's not fair that we get to produce more CO2 per capita and then tell them they can't.

That leads to inaction by both less and more developed. They each say they're not going to reduce unless the other agrees to also.

I think we should just do everything reasonable to reduce our CO2 production and when they see how it's actually cheaper everyone else will go along. And as we get more data that says CO2 is dangerous.

Actually, I think that other countries like China are gung ho developing strategies to reduce CO2 because they know there's a lot of economic potential and we're going to be left in their dust.

Tom says:
Do you truly believe you are the only generalist in the field?

Did I say I was? Anyway, being a generalist isn't the only qualification needed for a balanced view of the man made global warming hypothesis. Not being dependent on grants from the piper calling the tune and not being a director of a company financially benefitting from the scaremongering helps too.

Read this:

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/
files/061711_Broun%20Letter%20to%20UN%20re%20IPCC%20Conflict%20of%20Interest.pdf

You'll need to stitch the url back together after .gov/

And so we should add to their miseries by drowning a far greater number or causing them to die from disease, starvation and conflict for the remaining inhabitable land?

Come on Tom, even the IPCC admits C21st sea level change will be measured in inches not feet. I say change rather than rise because according to the European Space Agency ENVISAT unadjusted data, sea level has been falling since 2008. The adjusted data is virtually the same as the rate of rise from around the end of the last ice age.

.

At that rate of rise the water in the year 2100 will have risen by... but wait, the proper thing to do would be to average that with the current rate of rise measured by the TOPEX/JASON satellite platforms which are showing around 2.1mm/year over the same period. So make that rise by 2100 around 6", if the trend doesn't reverse or accelerate. The sea level was higher in Roman times, as evidenced by the port they built which is now landlocked. Southern England has been sinking since, so it can't be explained away as isostatic rebound either.

China is proceeding at breakneck speed to develop clean energy sources

China is opening a new coal powered generation plant at the rate of two a month, selling solar panels to the west at alarm inflated prices, and laughing all the way to the bank. Which they own, along with a big pile of dollars, pounds, Euros and Krona.

China is also buying up arable land in Africa at breakneck speed with the loot, and the food will go to China if the weather turns cold in the northern hemisphere. The law of unintended consequences is about to bite the UN, the IPCC and the well meaning NGO's farting about with methane stoves in Africa severely on the bum.

That is not a slur at all, Rog, merely a reference to statements made by you and Nick in previous posts. You believe them, I don't.

I know the thin end of a fat wedge when I see it. It's my Engineer training, I'm good at geometry.

Edited by tallbloke on 06/21/2011 01:56:07 MDT.