Climate Abberation

[A_Wanderer]

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

...

...

Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

link

Definitely cause for thought.

 

[deep]

This author seems to have an agenda

that is out of the main stream

Who believes this is true? Bob Carter, "The Great Barrier Reef is doing just fine"

Professor Robert (Bob) Carter, is "a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University", Australia [1] (http://myprofile.cos.com/glrmc). In a byline with an op-ed published in the Sydney Morning Herald he was described as an "experienced environmental scientist." [2] (http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2005/09/28/1127804546992.html). He is a well known climate change skeptic.

Carter could better be described as 'a prominent research geologist with a personal interest in the issue of climate change', from his list of research papers (http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm). He has extensive experience of paleoclimatic research, including participation in Ocean Drilling Program Leg 181 in the southwest Pacific which described the benchmark 4 million year long, mid-latitude climate record from Site 1119. [3] (http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/Carter&Gammon-Science-04.pdf)

In 2005 Carter was appointed by the Australian Minister for Environment, Ian Campbell, as a judge for the Australian Government Peter Hunt Eureka Prize for Environmental Journalism. [4] (http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/Greenery-is-shrouding-debate/2005/03/18/1111086009302.html)

In January 2006 Carter told The Australian that "atmospheric CO2 is not a primary forcing agent for temperature change," arguing instead that "any cumulative human signal is so far undetectable at a global level and, if present, is buried deeply in the noise of natural variation". [5] (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17750944%5E30417,00.html)
Table of contents [showhide]
1 SourceWatch Resources
2 External links

2.1 Articles by Carter
2.2 Interviews with Carter
2.3 Articles about Carter
[edit]
SourceWatch Resources

* Climate change skeptics

[edit]
External links

* Bob Carter's personal homepage (http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/)

[edit]
Articles by Carter

* Bob Carter, "The Great Barrier Reef is doing just fine: a precautionary tale (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1183)", On Line Opinion, March 12, 2002. (First published in the Courier-Mail on 27 November 2002.)
* Bob Carter,"Modern 'global warming' may turn out to be just a lot of hot air (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=848)", On Line Opinion, November 7, 2003. (First published in the Australian Financial Review on 3 November 2003.)
* Bob Carter, "Cool rationality shatters greenhouse hype (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3734)", On Line Opinion, August 4, 2005. (Originally published in the Australian Financial Review July 14, 2005).
* Bob Carter, "Climate Change is Not About the Weather (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1170732.htm)", Perspective, ABC Radio National, August 6, 2004.
* Bob Carter, "Global Warming Hysteria and the Deadly Disease of Hansenism (http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_9241.htm)", Melbourne Rotary Club address, June 15, 2005.
* Bob Carter, "All the signs of full-blown Mother Earthism (http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2005/09/28/1127804546992.html)", Sydney Morning Herald, September 29 2005.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes, interestingly the most recent study of the GBR would support that view

THE Great Barrier Reef is far more resilient to rising water temperatures than scientists feared, with less than 1 per cent of its coral affected by bleaching after the hot summer.

Scientists had predicted that as much as 60 per cent of the reef's coral might suffer bleaching, which occurs when warm temperatures rob the living coral of nutrition.

But professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, from the University of Queensland's Centre for Marine Studies, said yesterday that samples he had collected from the various parts of the reef showed the fears were unfounded.

Professor Hoegh-Guldberg's survey showed coral north of the Keppel Islands near Rockhampton had escaped bleaching, and less than 1 per cent of the outer reef had been affected.

"I was surprised about the fact that we had some bleaching within the coastal regions, but it wasn't as bad as we'd seen in the Keppel Islands (previously)," he told ABC TV.

"Probably about 1000sqkm of reef has experienced moderate to severe bleaching but, given the size of the Great Barrier Reef, this is quite a minimal impact."

In January, the professor's team at the University of Queensland had initially been concerned that the 2005-06 summer could be a repeat of 2001-02, when more than half the reef was bleached and between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of the coral died.

The concern had arisen after above-average sea temperatures had been recorded through the summer months.

"This year we are worried because we have higher (temperature) anomalies which may result in greater damage," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said at the time.

But their concerns proved unfounded, confirming the views last month of scientist Peter Ridd, who said the Great Barrier Reef was one of the world's most resilient ecosystems.

"The only place that's probably better is Antarctica," said Dr Ridd, from Townsville's James Cook University.

link

If consensus matters so much
Why ignore the Copenhagen Consensus?

 

[nbcrusader]

This author seems to have an agenda

that is out of the main stream

Science that can only be presented if it matches your "mainstream" political thought of the day is junk science.

 

[deep]

Yes, interestingly the most recent study of the GBR would support that viewlink

If consensus matters so much
Why ignore the Copenhagen Consensus?

from your article

A spokesman for conservation organisation WWF, Richard Leck, still offered a warning if ocean temperatures rose.

"By 2050, unless we build the resistance of the reef, we will be faced with a pretty diminished resource," Mr Leck said.

Any damage to the reef would hurt the economies of Queensland and Australia.

The reef is worth $5.8 billion to the national economy, employs more than 60,000 people and is visited by more than two million tourists each year.

Scientists are urging state and federal governments to reduce greenhouse emissions to avoid the bleaching that hit east Africa in 1998, when 50 per cent of its reefs were lost.

 

[A_Wanderer]

WWF doesn't have an agenda?

Identify whats going on.
Identify what can be done to solve the problem.
then decide the course of action.

This is not being done with Kyoto, we are probably heading back into a stronger ice house because of global warming.

 

[wizard2c]

reply

Yes, quite interesting.

 

[Irvine511]

Science that can only be presented if it matches your "mainstream" political thought of the day is junk science.

two totally, totally different issues.

totally.

conflate at your own risk.

 

[melon]

link

Definitely cause for thought.

A rather misleading article that ignores the rampant warming in the north polar region.

Anyway, if that and Greenland melt, the Gulf Stream will puke out for at least 1000 years and we won't have to worry about global warming anymore. We'll then have to figure out how to relocate over half of Europe. We'll have a party like the good old days.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

two totally, totally different issues.

totally.

conflate at your own risk.

Please add substance.

The original article was dismissed without consideration, with a suggestion that only mainstream thought should be considered.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Re: Re: Climate Abberation

A rather misleading article that ignores the rampant warming in the north polar region.

Anyway, if that and Greenland melt, the Gulf Stream will puke out for at least 1000 years and we won't have to worry about global warming anymore. We'll then have to figure out how to relocate over half of Europe. We'll have a party like the good old days.

Melon

Maybe we could artifically increase albedo on the continent to reverse the effects? We need not be slaves to climatic feedback.

 

[melon]

Re: Re: Re: Climate Abberation

Maybe we could artifically increase albedo on the continent to reverse the effects? We need not be slaves to climatic feedback.

We'll be slaves to climactic feedback once the ice has melted. The Gulf Stream requires a certain level of salinity to sustain itself.

Frankly, a highly repugnant solution, in absence of curbing carbon dioxide emissions, would be to roll back sulfur dioxide emission limits. Sulfur dioxide, the main component behind acid rain and a naturally-occurring molecule in volcanic eruptions, is also a highly effective global coolant. It's probably why, despite over 225 years of the Industrial Revolution that the effects of global warming have only really exploded over the last 30 years or so. There's no pollutant to counteract the global warming properties of carbon dioxide emissions.

I do think, however, it would be much smarter to work on curbing carbon dioxide emissions.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

Please add substance.

The original article was dismissed without consideration, with a suggestion that only mainstream thought should be considered.

yes, but "mainstream" thought and "junk science" are hardly the same thing.

you were intentionally using language used to discredit Intelligent Design, implying that differing opinions on climate change are analgous to differing "opinions" on the veracity of evolution.

such comparisons are inapplicable since Intelligent Design is not science but theology, whereas A_W has presented a perfectly valid scientific (i.e., verifiable or falsifiable) opinion.

so it's either that, you you need to use the phrase "junk science" in a more appropriate context.

 

[nbcrusader]

yes, but "mainstream" thought and "junk science" are hardly the same thing.

you were intentionally using language used to discredit Intelligent Design, implying that differing opinions on climate change are analgous to differing "opinions" on the veracity of evolution.

such comparisons are inapplicable since Intelligent Design is not science but theology, whereas A_W has presented a perfectly valid scientific (i.e., verifiable or falsifiable) opinion.

so it's either that, you you need to use the phrase "junk science" in a more appropriate context.

Perhaps you are mixing my comments in different threads. Perhaps you are projecting your opinions of me into this thread. I never raised or hinted anything about Intelligent Design.

 

[Irvine511]

Perhaps you are mixing my comments in different threads. Perhaps you are projecting your opinions of me into this thread. I never raised or hinted anything about Intelligent Design.

then it's clear you need to be more precise when you use a phrase like "junk science."

and in past threads, you've made comparisons and tried to draw parallels between ID proponants and environmentalists, which blurs the very important distinction between science and theology.

 

[nbcrusader]

Junk Science is a term of art used in many different contexts. It uses elements of fact to further a position or agenda, even if contradictory facts exist.

 

[A_Wanderer]

then it's clear you need to be more precise when you use a phrase like "junk science."

and in past threads, you've made comparisons and tried to draw parallels between ID proponants and environmentalists, which blurs the very important distinction between science and theology.

Where do some of the more extreme variations on the Gaia hypothesis sit on this scale?

 

[wizard2c]

reply

Melon....."good old days"....I've been contemplating that movement but more on a global level.