Vote: for reinstating Climate Change back Onto the G-20 agenda !!!

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Pick holes in some of the models?

I would love it if you showed me any model that predicted a 17 year hiatus. You could also do me Favour and point me to anyone in the science is settled crowd, who know truckloads more than me, who predicted a 17 year hiatus whilst carbon (dioxide) kept on rising.

Climate change where the future is certain but the past keeps changing.

Could it be no one is contradicting me with any models that predicted a hiatus in warming because all the models predicted temperature rises over that period?

Please someone who agrees in global warming predictions show me the forecasts that predicted a pause in warming.

[hardtack 10,627]

Could it be no one is contradicting me with any models that predicted a hiatus in warming because all the models predicted temperature rises over that period?

Please someone who agrees in global warming predictions show me the forecasts that predicted a pause in warming.

Are sudden drops in the stock market always predictable... short answer, no... yet the trend over an extended period of time is up. Likewise with global warming, it is not always easy to predict a sudden hiatus, but over the long term the temperature is steadily increasing... an undeniable fact.

[Earl Hood 6,101]

Could it be no one is contradicting me with any models that predicted a hiatus in warming because all the models predicted temperature rises over that period?

Please someone who agrees in global warming predictions show me the forecasts that predicted a pause in warming.

Wrecker I haven't bothered because we have been here before but you don't agree so be it. There is no pause, the world keeps warming in the 2000's albeit at a slower rate of increase as the 20 years to 1998. The models may not have reflected that reduction in accelerated warming perfectly but they are still relevant. What is your point anyway?

The world is not cooling is it? Just remember the consequences if you are wrong versus the costs of doing something to avoid the plus 2 degrees warming, which is three fifths of fuyck all for society. Except of course you are linked to the fossil fuel industry in some way. What is your problem, do you work for Exxon or someone similar?

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Are sudden drops in the stock market always predictable... short answer, no... yet the trend over an extended period of time is up. Likewise with global warming, it is not always easy to predict a sudden hiatus, but over the long term the temperature is steadily increasing... an undeniable fact.

Hardtack we seem to agree on this. As I keep saying we have been warming since the little ice age... an undeniable fact. The trend over that period of time is up and our climate will always naturally trend one way or the other because it is always changing. We also had a sharp period of warming during the rise from the little ice age and over that period hysteria over global warming was bubbling. At that stage I believed in the theory. The warming has been in hiuatus for at least the last 17 years... an undeniable fact. This is a very short period in time but no less significant than the rapid warming. Ignore the hiatus because of the time period then you also need to ignore the rapid warming.In the stock market you would cancel the bull out with the bear.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Wrecker I haven't bothered because we have been here before but you don't agree so be it. There is no pause, the world keeps warming in the 2000's albeit at a slower rate of increase as the 20 years to 1998. The models may not have reflected that reduction in accelerated warming perfectly but they are still relevant. What is your point anyway?

The world is not cooling is it? Just remember the consequences if you are wrong versus the costs of doing something to avoid the plus 2 degrees warming, which is three fifths of fuyck all for society. Except of course you are linked to the fossil fuel industry in some way. What is your problem, do you work for Exxon or someone similar?

My point is the models didn't predict that but you keep on believing the people who pushed the models. Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.

There is a pause (or no statistically significant warming) if you follow the IPCC or the HADCRUT data.

I have never said the world is cooling.

[dpositive 1,698]

Instrumental records only date back to 1850 and that is coincidentally the end of the Little Ice Age. I'm thankful it has warmed since then. The 18 year hiatus we are currently experiencing, is acknowledged by the IPCC, yet is completely contrary to their earlier predictions of rapid warming. When your predictions don't materialise it is a fair indication your theory is sick.

When the predictions dont materialise it is an indicator that something has changed. The data has been varied or perhaps some countries changing their practices has had an effect. It will be interesting to find out what.

[daisycutter 29,743]

When the predictions dont materialise it is an indicator that something has changed. The data has been varied or perhaps some countries changing their practices has had an effect. It will be interesting to find out what.

i'm sorry,dp, but anyone who believes that current science understands the earth's global climate mechanisms well enough to construct a model that accurately predicts global climate is either indulging themselves in an exercise of gross arrogance or is completely deluding themselves.

[dpositive 1,698]

i'm sorry,dp, but anyone who believes that current science understands the earth's global climate mechanisms well enough to construct a model that accurately predicts global climate is either indulging themselves in an exercise of gross arrogance or is completely deluding themselves.

I sort of agree, thats why it will be interesting to see what the scientists say as more data is analysed. I dont know that they said their models accurately predict, they only say they are models which if all data remains as modelled give these outcomes. That is what modelling is.

Unfortunately some people demand that the future is accurately predicted, it cant be, as even the establishment of the models will affect any future outcome. It is similar to the Hawthorne effect where the observation affects performance.

Climate is such a huge variable that there are many impacts and many variable measuring modalities. The introduction of more sophisticated measurements and the collection of greater volumes of data will still not accurately predict the future. Many models have already been overcome as data proves higher than predicted. But still modelling has relevance as it provides some system. and ultimately some facts to compare.

[daisycutter 29,743]

I sort of agree, thats why it will be interesting to see what the scientists say as more data is analysed. I dont know that they said their models accurately predict, they only say they are models which if all data remains as modelled give these outcomes. That is what modelling is.

Unfortunately some people demand that the future is accurately predicted, it cant be, as even the establishment of the models will affect any future outcome. It is similar to the Hawthorne effect where the observation affects performance.

Climate is such a huge variable that there are many impacts and many variable measuring modalities. The introduction of more sophisticated measurements and the collection of greater volumes of data will still not accurately predict the future. Many models have already been overcome as data proves higher than predicted. But still modelling has relevance as it provides some system. and ultimately some facts to compare.

i've never claimed modelling is a waste of time. one has to start somewhere and build on it

what i complain about is the sometimes slavish belief in a model which many commentators and environmental warriors claim

one must always have a good appreciation of the limitations of any modelling and not fall into the trap of becoming a zealot

granted, good data, and more data is always required but it is much more than just data, it's more about getting the correct algorithms into the model.

realistically global climate modelling is in it's infancy and is a monumental task

i noticed recently the space probe has reached pluto and is starting to receive close-up data. the first comment from the scientists is that it is much bigger than they thought.

makes one wonder how accurate their knowledge of space bodies hundreds of light years away is if they can't get something this close right

i'm not anti-science or anything, in fact very much the opposite, but it's always prudent to keep one's perspective firmly rooted in reality with a liberal dose of skepticism

[Earl Hood 6,101]

i'm sorry,dp, but anyone who believes that current science understands the earth's global climate mechanisms well enough to construct a model that accurately predicts global climate is either indulging themselves in an exercise of gross arrogance or is completely deluding themselves.

DC and DP just remember to keep the modelling in perspective. I am happy to believe in them accepting there will be a variability of plus or minus 20 or 30% from reality, like every other intelligent prediction we may make in life. My point is not to get too caught up in arguing about the accuracy of predictive models. I will go with the indisputable physics, if we keep pumping CO2 and methane into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates we get atmospheric heating. That is a given. I then note that for the last 360 months, NASA says that global temperatures have been at or above the 20th Century average. The last below average month was in 1985. We have a disturbing trend here. So yes we can challenge models but really I need to ask where do you stand on climate change?

Do you believe it is our greatest challenge that we must deal with now or are you both still, dare I say it, sitting on the fence and waiting for further data?

[daisycutter 29,743]

DC and DP just remember to keep the modelling in perspective. I am happy to believe in them accepting there will be a variability of plus or minus 20 or 30% from reality, like every other intelligent prediction we may make in life. My point is not to get too caught up in arguing about the accuracy of predictive models. I will go with the indisputable physics, if we keep pumping CO2 and methane into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates we get atmospheric heating. That is a given. I then note that for the last 360 months, NASA says that global temperatures have been at or above the 20th Century average. The last below average month was in 1985. We have a disturbing trend here. So yes we can challenge models but really I need to ask where do you stand on climate change?

Do you believe it is our greatest challenge that we must deal with now or are you both still, dare I say it, sitting on the fence and waiting for further data?

interesting bit of rationalisation there earl. your 20% or 30% variability being an "educated" guess i surmise.

yes, if you keep pumping c02 and methane into the atmosphere (and no other factors change) you would get atmospheric heating. but the assumption (in brackets) assumes a closed system and is not realistic. there is more at play as ms marple would say

quite happy to believe the globe is warming, just not sure where it is all heading and what if any is the most effective way for humans to combat it

i've always believed any solution (to either effecting it directly or coping with it) lies in new technologies, which might be more wishful than prudent, but i am optimistic,

i think a far bigger problem (and also begging a technology breakthrough) is our out of control and escalating world population.

such a pity that science is a much avoided discipline in our education institutions these days

maybe soylent green will be our salvation after all?

[dpositive 1,698]

DC and DP just remember to keep the modelling in perspective. I am happy to believe in them accepting there will be a variability of plus or minus 20 or 30% from reality, like every other intelligent prediction we may make in life. My point is not to get too caught up in arguing about the accuracy of predictive models. I will go with the indisputable physics, if we keep pumping CO2 and methane into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates we get atmospheric heating. That is a given. I then note that for the last 360 months, NASA says that global temperatures have been at or above the 20th Century average. The last below average month was in 1985. We have a disturbing trend here. So yes we can challenge models but really I need to ask where do you stand on climate change?

Do you believe it is our greatest challenge that we must deal with now or are you both still, dare I say it, sitting on the fence and waiting for further data?[/quote

I don't think it's our greatest challenge but we must do something. There are definite trends

My earlier post was to indicate that any "hiatus" may have been because some countries already have and I hope that Australia would be a leader in this action.

[dpositive 1,698]

I also think that debate is important to ensure informed decisions and the difficulty with political positions is that they are to often unable to move beyond ideology.

I despair that Tony Abbott seems to hold science which doesn't agree with his ideology must be ignored

[Earl Hood 6,101]

interesting bit of rationalisation there earl. your 20% or 30% variability being an "educated" guess i surmise.

yes, if you keep pumping c02 and methane into the atmosphere (and no other factors change) you would get atmospheric heating. but the assumption (in brackets) assumes a closed system and is not realistic. there is more at play as ms marple would say

quite happy to believe the globe is warming, just not sure where it is all heading and what if any is the most effective way for humans to combat it

i've always believed any solution (to either effecting it directly or coping with it) lies in new technologies, which might be more wishful than prudent, but i am optimistic,

i think a far bigger problem (and also begging a technology breakthrough) is our out of control and escalating world population.

such a pity that science is a much avoided discipline in our education institutions these days

maybe soylent green will be our salvation after all?

DC in global terms we are dealing with a closed system I believe. Where else are the greenhouse gases going. Off into space? As far as I know CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere unless it is absorbed in the oceans or into carbon organisms like trees, animals, wetlands etc. when we were in equilibrium in recent millenniums there was no problem but from the beginning of the industrial revolution we have been digging up coal and burning it at unprecedented rates. That is the problem and the solution is to replace energy production from fossil fuels with clean, zero emission energy like ugly wind turbines. That would come at a relatively small global cost compared to the high cost consequences.

We need to act now and decisively, there is no more time for quibbling or navel gazing on what we should do or if we should do anything because there is a 5% chance that the science might be wrong. The consequences of equivocating are huge, the consequences of acting now but if it is proved wrong are.....? Not a lot for society. The only losers are the fossil fuel companies and they are the ones sowing doubt about the "models". I say again the models are a side issue.

[Earl Hood 6,101]

DC and DP just remember to keep the modelling in perspective. I am happy to believe in them accepting there will be a variability of plus or minus 20 or 30% from reality, like every other intelligent prediction we may make in life. My point is not to get too caught up in arguing about the accuracy of predictive models. I will go with the indisputable physics, if we keep pumping CO2 and methane into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates we get atmospheric heating. That is a given. I then note that for the last 360 months, NASA says that global temperatures have been at or above the 20th Century average. The last below average month was in 1985. We have a disturbing trend here. So yes we can challenge models but really I need to ask where do you stand on climate change?

Do you believe it is our greatest challenge that we must deal with now or are you both still, dare I say it, sitting on the fence and waiting for further data?[/quote

I don't think it's our greatest challenge but we must do something. There are definite trends

My earlier post was to indicate that any "hiatus" may have been because some countries already have and I hope that Australia would be a leader in this action.

DP if it is not our greatest challenge, globally, what is dare I ask?

[dpositive 1,698]

DC in global terms we are dealing with a closed system I believe. Where else are the greenhouse gases going. Off into space? As far as I know CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere unless it is absorbed in the oceans or into carbon organisms like trees, animals, wetlands etc. when we were in equilibrium in recent millenniums there was no problem but from the beginning of the industrial revolution we have been digging up coal and burning it at unprecedented rates. That is the problem and the solution is to replace energy production from fossil fuels with clean, zero emission energy like ugly wind turbines. That would come at a relatively small global cost compared to the high cost consequences.

We need to act now and decisively, there is no more time for quibbling or navel gazing on what we should do or if we should do anything because there is a 5% chance that the science might be wrong. The consequences of equivocating are huge, the consequences of acting now but if it is proved wrong are.....? Not a lot for society. The only losers are the fossil fuel companies and they are the ones sowing doubt about the "models". I say again the models are a side issue.

Think I agree

Should I be worried that I am saying the same thing as Greg Combet

"mature informed debate required"

He's no longer in parliament but disagree when he said he's no longer in politics

[dpositive 1,698]

Weellll

Uranian mining and nuclear weapons are much greater global challenges, Middle East relations, population movement all much greater

Food production and consumption of all production are all much greater. They are all related perhaps but

Climate change and our action is minor as we can control it and have many proven monitoring and more sophisticated measuring techniques available to us

Abbott won't be able to destroy all global action although some political actions do have long term impacts

[daisycutter 29,743]

DC in global terms we are dealing with a closed system I believe. Where else are the greenhouse gases going. Off into space? As far as I know CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere unless it is absorbed in the oceans or into carbon organisms like trees, animals, wetlands etc. when we were in equilibrium in recent millenniums there was no problem but from the beginning of the industrial revolution we have been digging up coal and burning it at unprecedented rates. That is the problem and the solution is to replace energy production from fossil fuels with clean, zero emission energy like ugly wind turbines. That would come at a relatively small global cost compared to the high cost consequences.

We need to act now and decisively, there is no more time for quibbling or navel gazing on what we should do or if we should do anything because there is a 5% chance that the science might be wrong. The consequences of equivocating are huge, the consequences of acting now but if it is proved wrong are.....? Not a lot for society. The only losers are the fossil fuel companies and they are the ones sowing doubt about the "models". I say again the models are a side issue.

there you go again, earl. first 20-30% on the modelling now a 5% chance science might be wrong. where the heck do you pluck these figures from?

anyway, i don't think you or dp should get too fussed over what abbott says or does. In the grand global scheme of things it won't even make 0.1% difference at most

as for you thinking that it is a closed system, you are making the mistake of thinking we know all there is to know about all the factors that effect climate change and warming in particular. You can't just take co2 and methane in isolation.

anyway, i'm not disputing that global warming is possible or even probable

climate change or warming aside, i'm still very much in favour of minimising pollution, wastage, destruction of habitat, water usage, depletion of scarce resources etc etc

with a shrinking world and a growing population we need to get the balance right to just survive. no arguments there.

of course it needs to also be done equitably (both locally and globally) and herein lies the rub.....and the politics

but all these (necessary) things won't solve the big problems, merely ameliorate them somewhat

still think the major difference will lie with our ability to make major future technological breakthroughs rather than pissant things like carbon tax and windmills

forgive me, i'm starting to rave on, and sleep beckons

[nutbean 8,838]

i'm sorry,dp, but anyone who believes that current science understands the earth's global climate mechanisms well enough to construct a model that accurately predicts global climate is either indulging themselves in an exercise of gross arrogance or is completely deluding themselves.

This to me is the crux of the argument. I agree that there is continual refining and evolution of models.

To me it comes down to whether we believe that climate scientists continually make changes to flawed models to support their assertions or the models have validity but continue to be refined as more is learned and more ( and different) data comes to hand.

I keep pressing the same point. I have found the majority of reading I have done worrying. The consequences of inaction to me dictate that I don't think we can afford to be on the wrong side of the debate on this.

What the correct action is and levels of action required is entirely different debate which to me is even more troubling.

[Earl Hood 6,101]

Weellll

Uranian mining and nuclear weapons are much greater global challenges, Middle East relations, population movement all much greater

Food production and consumption of all production are all much greater. They are all related perhaps but

Climate change and our action is minor as we can control it and have many proven monitoring and more sophisticated measuring techniques available to us

Abbott won't be able to destroy all global action although some political actions do have long term impacts

Good point DP but I think we can continue to manage the nuclear issues we have had for nearly 70 years but yes it is always a risk. Food production and population movements will all become a greater problem as the temperature continues to rise. Millions will be on the move with sea level rises. How will we handle that?

[daisycutter 29,743]

Good point DP but I think we can continue to manage the nuclear issues we have had for nearly 70 years but yes it is always a risk. Food production and population movements will all become a greater problem as the temperature continues to rise. Millions will be on the move with sea level rises. How will we handle that?

millions are already on the move,earl, in case you haven't noticed. the world has shrunk

and it's got nothing to do with gcc

[dpositive 1,698]

Good point DP but I think we can continue to manage the nuclear issues we have had for nearly 70 years but yes it is always a risk. Food production and population movements will all become a greater problem as the temperature continues to rise. Millions will be on the move with sea level rises. How will we handle that?

dc said something about " our ability to make major future technological breakthroughs rather than pissant things like carbon tax and windmills" I think we will need to use more sophisticated windmills and economic structures to accommodate the population (Millions of whom are moving not due to gcc as dc also points out) which can move into the vacant North of Australia, hopefully turn it into productive food generation without disturbing the spirits that recognised kakadu (uranium country) as sickness country. Might have to do something about the increasing intensity of hurricanes etc but that may be assisted by also taking appropriate action on guess what.

It is an enclosed system after all.

[daisycutter 29,743]

dc said something about " our ability to make major future technological breakthroughs rather than pissant things like carbon tax and windmills" I think we will need to use more sophisticated windmills and economic structures to accommodate the population (Millions of whom are moving not due to gcc as dc also points out) which can move into the vacant North of Australia, hopefully turn it into productive food generation without disturbing the spirits that recognised kakadu (uranium country) as sickness country. Might have to do something about the increasing intensity of hurricanes etc but that may be assisted by also taking appropriate action on guess what.

It is an enclosed system after all.

sorry guys, global climate change is not a closed system. it is affected by non global events (many not fully understood)

as an example even the simple greenhouse effect is not a closed system (note every thing above the light blue)

[Wrecker45 3,378]

When the predictions dont materialise it is an indicator that something has changed. The data has been varied or perhaps some countries changing their practices has had an effect. It will be interesting to find out what.

When the predictions consistantly don't materialise it is an indication something is wrong. The impact Carbon Dioxide has on the climate is sick.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

I sort of agree, thats why it will be interesting to see what the scientists say as more data is analysed. I dont know that they said their models accurately predict, they only say they are models which if all data remains as modelled give these outcomes. That is what modelling is.

Unfortunately some people demand that the future is accurately predicted, it cant be, as even the establishment of the models will affect any future outcome. It is similar to the Hawthorne effect where the observation affects performance.

Climate is such a huge variable that there are many impacts and many variable measuring modalities. The introduction of more sophisticated measurements and the collection of greater volumes of data will still not accurately predict the future. Many models have already been overcome as data proves higher than predicted. But still modelling has relevance as it provides some system. and ultimately some facts to compare.

Exactly. You have nailed it. There are so many variables it is disingenuous to focus on carbon dioxide.