Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

OT: Skeptics vs Alarmist Cage Match unSpectacular!


nmonteith

26-May-2009
11:28:21 AM

On 26/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>I work for the Department of Energy, Resources and Tourism in Canberra.

What has tourism got to do with the other two?!!!

lacto

26-May-2009
11:34:55 AM

Would TonyB be a chef ? His souffle looks lovely is light and airy but seems to be sinking fast but no worries TonyB will make it rise again. It was raised by the co2 trapped inside which now appears to have escaped but dont worry co2 has no effect on the world .
Could tony please also tell us where you can get a degree in Railway enginneering . I did civil which covered many disciplines ,soil hydraulics , structures etc with 3 years of university maths , statistics and even a term of nuclear physics (though I dont know why ). I doubt whether anymore than a couple of people who finished in my year are still engineering rather they are overseeing and managing ie they have other diverse skills and that doesnt mean that they are any less capable in their current field .


evanbb

26-May-2009
12:16:03 PM

On 26/05/2009 TonyB wrote:
>Can you please repeat then, in your own words, what you think is your
>best evidence than man's CO2 is causing global warming or cooling.

Sure, lets have a crack at that then. Not that I believe for a second that you're even listening.

It's a pretty simple proof IMHO, through a few steps.

First we need to prove that CO2 in the atmosphere has the potential to raise the global temperature.
Here's a referenced link from New Scientist It's worth reading the whole article to understand the phenomenon correctly, and the lagging/leading argument.
Here's another explanation of the same phenomenon
Please read these carefully, and don't just run away after a sentence in the abstract. This is a delicate concept and requires a bit of thought.

Once a link between CO2 and temperature is established, you need to establish that we are putting more CO2 into the air than other sources. Your comment RE oceans is invalid; there are of course many natural sources of CO2, and their relative magnitudes is immaterial. It is a rate of change problem more than anything. Sure, the ocean puts out some CO2 (though I admit I haven't checked on this and will at the end), so do volcanoes, bananas, people, cars, soil, gas fire places etc. But, there are also lots of sinks; trees, food crops, the ocean, growing people, and some other things I can't think of. So, the question is, are we putting CO2 into the atmosphere faster than other things are taking it out? The proof of this should be pretty simple. Is there evidence that atmospheric carbon is increasing, particularly since the Industrial Revolution? This is also very hard to dispute, as it is a matter of direct measurement in ice cores, and more recently with direct atmospheric measurement.
This one is a bit short, but pretty obvious. It is also 'measured atop a volcano' Which the sceptics hate.
This one is much more useful

Any problems so far? Seems pretty unequivocal to me.

The third and final step is the most complex. The obvious rise in CO2 needs to be linked to observed changes in temperature, above and beyond natural/astronomical processes. First you need to identify and quantify the natural processes. From the top then:
Orbital changes of the Earth around the sun.
A beaut article from Encyclopedia Britannica, hardly a left-wing conspiracy organisation So, orbtial changes are out.
Sun spots (more correctly sun surface changes)? let's see what I can find.
A link to a peer reviewed article This notes that it is not insignificant in terms of radiative forcing, but contributes at most "25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming."

Let me know if you know of any thing else that could also be causing a warming effect.

So, the last step, once you've cleared all these hurdles, is; Is there an observed warming effect, on average, across the planet? This is a pretty big question, and what's admissible as evidence is difficult to gauge. Lets only count empirical, quantitative data; so that excludes all the qualitative stuff like glacial retreat, rainfall changes, spring flowering times etc. Needs to be at least 100 years worth, and a big data set.
This is a little ripper Note that the error bars are far less than the total variation.

Your point that the observed changes are less than the margin of error is invalidated.

Here are some more views of the same phenomenon.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temp-anom-larg.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/globalchange/climate_change.asp
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9755&page=21

There, how's that for a proof?

In your rebuttal I will only accept direct challenge to the logic, citing references, or peer-reviewed science that challenges directly any one of these points.

Arguments about 'it was warm in the past', will not be accepted. It is a rate of change problem, not an absolute temperature problem. No-one, anywhere, is disupting that it has been warm in the past, and will probably be warm in the future. Arguments containing the phrase 'cooling since 1998' will not be accepted either. This has been refuted time and again.

Ball's in your court Tony.

widewetandslippery

26-May-2009
12:19:04 PM

OK, the reasons behind climate change mattered years ago. Is there anything we can do now to ice up the Bluies in winter? I don't think so. Therefore either way the above arguement goes earth isn't going to be in better shape in the next 40yrs. After that I'm dead. I'm off to burn a tyre.


evanbb

26-May-2009
12:28:37 PM

On 26/05/2009 nmonteith wrote:

>What has tourism got to do with the other two?!!!

My suspicion is that it comes from the need to manage some Tourist locations, with respect to their resource value as well. For example, uranium under Kakadu, or if they found oil under the Great Barrier reef. What it means is that there's a bunch of wet lefties in the building.


evanbb

26-May-2009
12:30:22 PM

On 26/05/2009 widewetandslippery wrote:
>OK, the reasons behind climate change mattered years ago. Is there anything
>we can do now to ice up the Bluies in winter?

Now, I know you're being facetious, and I like it. But, some have suggested that the changes in rainfall could improve snow conditions in Australia. I don't understand why, but I've heard it, so it must be true.

widewetandslippery

26-May-2009
12:40:52 PM

How long would a nuclear winter take to ice up the Bluies?

Would thermonuclear attack on the northern or southern hemispheres serve our purpose best?

Wanna buy some carbon credits? I know a good deal and all this hot air you guys are owing....


IdratherbeclimbingM9

26-May-2009
12:46:00 PM

On 26/05/2009 nmonteith wrote:
>On 26/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>>I work for the Department of Energy, Resources and Tourism in Canberra.
>
>What has tourism got to do with the other two?!!!

Bugger all, but that is the way some govts (both federal and state), think they are making savings; ... by amalgamating dpts to gain efficiencies of service/scale. For example you only need one admin section for three dpts rather than three etc.

adrian

26-May-2009
1:46:18 PM

On 26/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>On 26/05/2009 adrian wrote:
>>Out of vaguely following all of this thread, I have one big question.
>
>>Who do Evan and Tony work for?
>
>I work for the Department of Energy, Resources and Tourism in Canberra.
>Before that I was at Sydney Water, and before that Intercast and Forge.
>
>I did a BSc at Sydney Uni in physical Geography, then BEng in Mechanical
>at UTS.
>
>
>Not sure about Tones. He's dodged that question a few times.

Right. Any vacancies at the moment? I'd love to have the amount of spare time during work hours that you do ;)

climberman

26-May-2009
4:06:11 PM

Bloomin heck, as a UNSW geographer I always wondered what good USYD Geographers were. Thanks evan :)

BSc Geog and BEng would be a good double. Nice.


ajfclark

27-May-2009
10:45:09 AM

I don't like these odds.

TonyB

27-May-2009
11:21:16 AM

On 26/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>Once a link between CO2 and temperature is established,

Lots of links and waffle. Let me say it again quite simply (excuse the shouting):

Please put IN YOUR OWN WORDS (one paragraph is ample) what you believe is the EVIDENCE ( that is, not models and NOT THEORIES about "forcing" etc ) that man's CO2 has caused any the warming over the past 180 years since the Little Ice Age or the current COOLING.


Organ Pipe

27-May-2009
11:37:56 AM

Yawn Tony.

You remind me of Tracy Grimshaw.

What was it you said you do for a living again???


evanbb

27-May-2009
11:39:27 AM

On 27/05/2009 TonyB wrote:
>On 26/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>>Once a link between CO2 and temperature is established,
>
>Lots of links and waffle. Let me say it again quite simply (excuse the
>shouting):
>
>Please put IN YOUR OWN WORDS (one paragraph is ample) what you believe
>is the EVIDENCE ( that is, not models and NOT THEORIES about "forcing"
>etc ) that man's CO2 has caused any the warming over the past 180 years
>since the Little Ice Age or the current COOLING.

Oh, FFS Tony, are you joking? "lots of links and waffle"? Is that what you consider science to be? Evidence is what's written in a Chockstone post? There is not one single model referenced in there. Can you even read? Does your computer allow you to follow links? Do you know what a theory is? I knew you'd take this tack once I'd cornered you into providing an example of what you consider evidence. Every single one of those links contains empirical data. If that's not evidence, tell me what is. Rather than just sitting there saying "nope, that's not it." "nah, wrong again."

I've tried to be civil at every turn, and frankly, now you're trying my patience. This is clearly obfuscation.

Let me try this another way.

The "no global warming theory" implies that, the UN, NASA, the IPCC, the US Govt, The Aust Govt, China, the Coal Industry, the Nuclear Industry, the renewables industry, the Greens and every major economy in Europe have ALL been misled by some enormous conspiracy. A co-ordinated assault, co-ordinated by God knows who or what (assuming it exists), to dupe the whole modern world into cutting their CO2 emissions.

And yet, you have seen through it all, and found the Real Truth.

Seen any UFOs this week? Loch Ness monster? Christ, there's more evidence of Big Foot than the Non-GW hypothesis. At least they had a monkey suit stuffed in a freezer.

So, it wasn't the KO I was hoping for. But I'm claiming a points victory.

Science and logic FTW.

EB

TonyB

27-May-2009
11:53:09 AM

On 26/05/2009 evanbb wrote:

Evan,
A few comments on your link to your NS article. (If you read my earlier post, I pointed out how Al Gore's ice cores do NOT give causual evidence).
It states:
"after the initial 800 year lag, temperature and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise together ".
That is, ice core data shows that CO2 increase FOLLOW temperature increases. That is, CO2 is NOT a cause !

"Models suggest that rising greenhouse gases, including CO2, explains about 40% of the warming as the ice ages ended."
Models are not proof. Is is easy to make a model give any result you want. This statement is made after stating that CO2 increases are an effect of warming, not a cause !

The major long term changes in climate are the result of the following:
21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. By far the major greenhouse gas is water vapour. CO2 increases should cause a very small increase in global temperatures due to greenhouse effect. In theory a doubling of CO2 concentrations should give about a 1 degree temperature increase, ignoring the earth's self regulation mechanisms. This also assume that increase in CO2 are due to man.

You may enjoy Prof Bob Carter's excellent series of videos on climate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY


evanbb

27-May-2009
12:01:08 PM

On 27/05/2009 TonyB wrote:

>Evan,
>A few comments on your link to your NS article. (If you read my earlier
>post, I pointed out how Al Gore's ice cores do NOT give causual evidence).
>It states:
>"after the initial 800 year lag, temperature and CO2 concentrations in
>the atmosphere rise together ".

I stated explicitly that you should read the whole article. Clearly you did not.

Go explain your case to the Ref. The fight's over.

widewetandslippery

27-May-2009
12:06:37 PM

Why do you guys care so much. You'll all be dead by the time things are fixed if they can be.

If the government isn't screwing us for carbon tax they'll just invent another way to rip us off.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

27-May-2009
12:36:30 PM

On 27/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>On 27/05/2009 TonyB wrote:
>
>>Evan,
>>A few comments on your link to your NS article. (If you read my earlier
>>post, I pointed out how Al Gore's ice cores do NOT give causual evidence).
>>It states:
>>"after the initial 800 year lag, temperature and CO2 concentrations in
>>the atmosphere rise together ".
>
>I stated explicitly that you should read the whole article. Clearly you
>did not.
>
>
>Go explain your case to the Ref. The fight's over.

TahDahh.
Another Chocky User ID makes the 1000 post milestone.
~> Good to see/read.

Hmm. If the fight is over, does that mean it is time to go climbing?


evanbb

27-May-2009
12:40:25 PM

On 27/05/2009 widewetandslippery wrote:
>Why do you guys care so much.

It's a personal thing, inter-generational equity and all that.

Same reason I don't like placing bolts, chipping routes, littering, general pollution. Just because I don't like something, or because it doesn't affect me, doesn't mean it doesn't affect someone else. Either now or in the future.

Like I said, it's a personal thing.


nmonteith

27-May-2009
12:42:35 PM

I hope you can write this up on your time sheets as 'education of the general public' Evan!

There are 818 messages in this topic.