My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Eclipse Now]

Except that you didn't live through a 'cooling scare' —*not a legitimate warning from a consensus of the climate community, anyway. Many climatologists at the time weren't buying into the hype, and the hype itself was a bit more balanced and less 'black and white' than many today realise. See New Scientist for more.

 

But hey, if you want to be sarcastic about one of about 10 great challenges humanity faces this century, go ahead... and make sure you don't touch the basic rationale behind it, spectrometers and the RFE. (Radiative Forcing Equation). Make sure you discuss one of the common myths about climate. Here, I'll give you a heads up on the 26 most common myths you can spread around about climate change. Go for it... but warning: it usually identifies you as 'one of those'.

[Zythryn]

I must have missed in Binghi, there was a global cooling hysteria in the 70s?

[Flying Binghi]

...the basic rationale behind it...

 

Hmmm... I wonder if this fellow might be asking about the 'basics' ? -

 

open letter:

 

Bradley Smith

Executive Director

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

 

Dear Bradley,

 

In the “Statement on Climate Change” issued by FASTS on 4 September is included the sentence, ‘The physical principles of the greenhouse effect are well-understood.’

 

I would be grateful if you would provide a summary of the physical principles of the greenhouse effect. In making this request I do not doubt the existence of the greenhouse effect, only that the scientific principles for sustaining the greenhouse effect are well understood.

 

The IPCC, in its most recent (2007) report has the statement (Frequently Asked Question 1.1):

 

“The reason that the Earth’s surface is this warm (14oC) is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the surface. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect.”

 

There are two problems with this statement. Firstly, a blanket acts as an inhibitor of conduction and not radiation; oxygen and nitrogen are equally as good insulators as water vapour and carbon dioxide and adding greenhouse gases does not materially affect the conducting properties of the atmosphere. Secondly, net upward longwave radiation increases with altitude (according to the IPCC global average data, from 66 Wm-2 at the surface to 235 Wm-2 at the top of the atmosphere); the increase is due to the greenhouse gases and can hardly be described as inhibiting (ie, blanketing) radiation loss to space!

In an attempt to clarify the situation, the IPCC has an additional explanation (Frequently Asked Question 1.3):

 

“Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.”

 

As the IPCC’s global average data clearly show, there is more longwave radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface than is emitted by the atmosphere back to the surface. The net effect of longwave radiation is to cool the Earth’s surface, not to warm it.

 

The above two explanations from the IPCC are quite different and neither accord with the data presented on the global average Earth energy budget. As you will appreciate, the greenhouse effect is the underpinning science for the hypothesis of dangerous global warming from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by human activities. If we cannot get the underpinning science as a clear and logical construct then the edifice is no more than a house of cards! Also, if it is not possible to explain how the Earth’s greenhouse effect is sustained then how can we be confident that the computer models used to project global warming are adequately representing the greenhouse effect?

As FASTS claims that the physical principles of the greenhouse effect are well understood I presume FASTS has a different explanation than what IPCC has presented. I would be grateful for a summary of the FASTS principles of the greenhouse effect.

 

Yours sincerely,

William Kininmonth

Kew, Victoria

 

 

 

Bill Kininmonth, meteorologist and was the head of Australia’s National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998.

 

Formating faults and bolding are mine, and Letter via -

Jennifer Marohasy

[Eclipse Now]

Sorry to disappoint, but check out his wiki.

Kininmouth is a science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute, formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy.

William Kininmonth (meteorologist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

The New York Times reported that in 2002 Frontiers of Freedom received $230,000 in funding from Exxon.[5] The institute received $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil in 2006[6]

Science and Public Policy Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

Quote any more of these fellows and I'll just laugh. All these sad old accusations have been answered. The 'outsiders' are often sincere, but get cranky and are prone to seeing conspiracies where only good science has been offered. They don't like the peer review process, but that's science. Tough. If they don't like the way science is conducted, or the scientific method that checks their silly claims, then maybe they should take up Sci-Fi novel writing? Oh, I forgot, they already are.

 

EG: The 'blanket' strawman attack took the metaphor used by the IPCC to explain the process to laypeople, and debunked that as if it were a scientific claim, and the apparent 'confusion' with the basic radiative forcing equation is a technically worded slight of hand. Really, are we to believe that the 30 major climate institutions around the globe... the real peer reviewed ones that is... ALL made the same mistake on the BASIC PHYSICS?

 

Give me a break!

 

Check this list of complying organisations...

 

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Contents

[hide]

 

* 1 Statements by concurring organizations

o 1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007

o 1.2 InterAcademy Council

o 1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008

o 1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007

o 1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005

o 1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001

o 1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

o 1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts

o 1.9 Network of African Science Academies

o 1.10 National Research Council (US)

o 1.11 European Science Foundation

o 1.12 American Association for the Advancement of Science

o 1.13 Federation of American Scientists

o 1.14 World Meteorological Organization

o 1.15 American Meteorological Society

o 1.16 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

o 1.17 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

o 1.18 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

o 1.19 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

o 1.20 International Union for Quaternary Research

o 1.21 American Quaternary Association

o 1.22 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

o 1.23 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

o 1.24 International Union of Geological Sciences

o 1.25 European Geosciences Union

o 1.26 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences

o 1.27 Geological Society of America

o 1.28 American Geophysical Union

o 1.29 American Astronomical Society

o 1.30 American Institute of Physics

o 1.31 American Physical Society

o 1.32 American Chemical Society

o 1.33 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

o 1.34 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)

o 1.35 American Statistical Association

* 2 Noncommittal statements

o 2.1 American Association of State Climatologists

o 2.2 American Association of Petroleum Geologists

* 3 Statements by dissenting organizations

* 4 Scientific consensus

* 5 Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

o 5.1 Oreskes, 2004

o 5.2 Bray and von Storch, 2003

o 5.3 Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997

o 5.4 Bray and von Storch, 1996

o 5.5 Other older surveys of scientists

* 6 See also

* 7 References

* 8 External links

 

Oh, and that "# 3 Statements by dissenting organizations"?

 

Statements by dissenting organizations

 

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[46]

 

The reason your dude and his "institute" are not listed? Well, they're more of a lobby group than a credible scientific organisation. If they don't like the scientific method... let them have their silly parties and rants to the already converted in scepticism. If the subject wasn't so serious I'd be less annoyed and more amused by them, but the trouble is people BELIEVE these guys based on a mishandling of the data, and EVERY one of their TIRED old objections has been handled repeatedly... but they simply will not recant.

 

Got any more? Come on... quote something from the list of 26 myths. You know you want to.

[Flying Binghi]

Err, Eclipse Now - I thought Kininmonth was a meteorologist (ret.) ...somebody who daily deals with the weather - I could be wrong though ;)

[Zythryn]

Binghi, you may be correct that Kinimonth is/was a meteorologist.

You are incorrect in assuming his opinion holds any weight on matters of the global climate when compared to peer reviewed research.

His statement is so full of holes and errors meant to mislead I don't know where to start. The 'blanket' issue already pointed out by Eclipse Now is a good start, as is the rest of his information.

[Flying Binghi]

I guess the questions raised in the Kininmouth letter will be easily answered by F.A.S.T.S. then :hyper:

[Eclipse Now]

FB — can you try making sense? You're not engaging the serious points made above and are verging on trolling.

 

Do you understand the concept of peer reviewed science?

[Moontanman]

Just to note again, there is now good evidence the Permian die off resulted from a very large meteor strike, therefore there is no comparison to the climate situation under discussion here. (except of course to expect the unexpected. :singer:) :hyper:

 

Well, the Permian extinction wasn't caused by a technological civilization for sure but what ever caused the change it was the release of huge amounts of methane that caused a greenhouse effect and stripped oxygen from the air. If a meteor caused the initial warm up is immaterial, it was a sudden warm up that caused the release of huge amounts of methane. Do you have a link to that, I haven't read about a meteor causing the Permian extinction.

[Turtle]

Well, the Permian extinction wasn't caused by a technological civilization for sure but what ever caused the change it was the release of huge amounts of methane that caused a greenhouse effect and stripped oxygen from the air. If a meteor caused the initial warm up is immaterial, it was a sudden warm up that caused the release of huge amounts of methane. Do you have a link to that, I haven't read about a meteor causing the Permian extinction.

 

I'll just give the link to the thread here where it is discussed, as it is rather a more complex impact event than you imagine. :hyper:

 

>> Permian impact evidence discussion

[Flying Binghi]

FB — can you try making sense? You're not engaging the serious points made above and are verging on trolling.

 

Do you understand the concept of peer reviewed science?

 

Not engaging!!! ...what you mean Eclipse Now, is I'm not engaging the pionts you want me to.

 

As we are accepting wikipedia as an authoritive source, via wikipedia -

 

Kininmonth headed Australia's National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998, with responsibilities for monitoring Australia's changing climate and advising the Australian government on the extent and severity of climate extremes. He was Australia's delegate to the WMO Commission for Climatology, was a member of Australia's delegations to the Second World Climate Conference (1990) and the subsequent intergovernmental negotiations for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1991-1992).

 

The New York Times reported that in 2002 Frontiers of Freedom received $230,000 in funding from Exxon.[5] The institute received $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil in 2006[6]

 

As to sources of funding... I'm a farmer (amongst other things), and from time to time fund some groups that I believe are looking out for my business of farming - I do not think those groups then become suspect for accepting my money, nor do I think there is anything wrong with me wanting to protect my business - common sense really :)

 

Re peer review in an environmental area - I helped a wildlife researcher many years ago who was studying a rare animal (for a PHD) on my farm - basicly I showed the researcher where the animals could be found and related storys of my knoweledge, sightings, paddock management and fire regime, etc. For my sins I got the first read of the pre peer review draft and an explanation of just what was involved and how you need to address the 'politics' of the reviewers, amongst other things ...interesting.

 

That said, when done properly IMHO and to me, 'peer review' is a usefull tool, though it needs carefull oversight to aviod being abused.

[Eclipse Now]

You've told a few long meandering tales leading no where to hide the fact that he has not published one peer reviewed climate piece. He lead a doubtful enterprise under the sceptical Howard government, and has worked for a number of dubious sources with dubious funding.

 

According to DeSmogBlog.com: Kinimonth is a frequent writer for a climate change skeptic organization called the "Lavoisier Group," and in Nov. 2004, the Lavoisier Group helped launch Kilimonth's book Climate Change; a natural hazard. According to Nov. 27, '04 news article , the Lavoisier Group was founded by Hugh Morgan the former CEO of Western Mining Corporation, a uranium mining company recently taken over by BHP Billiton. Lavoisier founders, "... are of the view that the science behind global warming policy is far less certain than its protagonists claim, and we also believe that the economic damage which Australia would suffer, if a carbon tax of the magnitude canvassed in AGO [Australia's Greenhouse Office] documents were imposed." No published peer-reviewed research on climate change According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Kininmonth has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. There is one study published in 1972 by "Kininmon, WR" on the subject of Rain-grown rice in Northern Australia. Kininmonth is a retired meteorologist and headed Australia's national climate centre for 12 years.

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: William Kininmonth

 

Don't try telling me that these groups were 'independent' even though they had dodgy sources of funding.

 

Check this... Exxon have as much as admitted they distorted the climate science with their funding.

[Flying Binghi]

And the question was -

 

Do you understand the concept of peer reviewed science?

 

My reply, ...again -

 

Re peer review in an environmental area - I helped a wildlife researcher many years ago who was studying a rare animal (for a PHD) on my farm - basicly I showed the researcher where the animals could be found and related storys of my knoweledge, sightings, paddock management and fire regime, etc. For my sins I got the first read of the pre peer review draft and an explanation of just what was involved and how you need to address the 'politics' of the reviewers, amongst other things ...interesting.

 

That said, when done properly IMHO and to me, 'peer review' is a usefull tool, though it needs carefull oversight to aviod being abused.

 

In reply I get this nonsense -

 

You've told a few long meandering tales leading no where to hide the fact that he has not published one peer reviewed climate piece

 

 

Try this article Eclipse Now -

 

Via, Climate case built on thin foundation | The Australian - a major Oz newspaper.

 

Some extracts,

 

The IPCC encourages us to believe that about 2500 climate scientists supported the claim of a significant human influence on climate

 

...We should now ask what else the IPCC has misled us about...

[Eclipse Now]

I've chased enough balls for you without even a "Woof, woof, good boy! Goooood booooy!"

 

It's time for you to get real. On peer review you write:

 

some good mates with shares in the private company of the reviewed was the last one I found.

 

Your argument appears to be that 30 something major climate science organisations around the globe are 'thrown out' by the fact that they are funded by various governments? You're comparing them to a suspicious little 'private company' with suspect shares and conflicts of interest?

 

I note that for some reason funding sources cast suspicion on environmental science, but don't do the same when Exxon is doing the funding.

 

"No, no, not Exxon... perish the thought they could skew the science! They're just funding 9 major climate sceptic groups for the good of humanity! Only the environmentalists have conflict-of-interest funding that throws out the science... not Exxon, never Exxon." (Nudge nudge wink wink say no more! Say no more!)

 

So, to The Australian article and the many other 'experts' and myths you might regurgitate I reply with the following 2 words:

Peer Review!

 

Show me the peer reviewed paper that questions the basic fundamentals on climate science, and then I'll be interested. Until then... (yawns)... more important things to do than to go chasing more balls for you. Answer my peer review challenge substantively, and then we'll have a chat.

[Flying Binghi]

Eclipse Now, your coming across as a breathless hysterical vegitarian. Could I recomend that you sit down and eat a good steak - it will help calm the mind, give clarity of thought, and reduce flatulance, i.e. the steak comes 'pre farted' :evil:

[Eclipse Now]

No mate, I love my steak. And even though I'm from a humanities background, I respect good science, and nothing you have supplied has made me question the scientific consensus.

 

I hope that some amazing new quirk of climate science, some 'global safety valve' that we were unaware of, becomes apparent over the next few decades... I really do hope this. I wouldn't rule it out. But that's different to being a sceptic because one doesn't like the idea of carbon taxes, or changing lifestyles. I accept the climate science for good reason. IF some future development means I can accept we're suddenly saved because of some heretofore unknown reason, I'll crack open a bear, crank up the barbie, and enjoy a good steak or 2. But until such time as the majority of peer reviewed climate science has verified some new cloud mechanism or oceanic phytoplankton gizmo or other can prevent our worst case scenarios... I'm a global warming alarmist, through and through.

 

It's simply about risk mitigation, like taking out insurance. If it were a 5% chance of a 'Great Depression'... I might say ignore it. But they seem to be saying a 95% chance of a Great Depression with "Business as usual" and a 5% chance that BILLIONS might die. (Figures just to illustrate risk mitigation... not exact). So the scenario is bad enough that even if the worst case scenarios are only small in probability, they are significantly high enough to warrant the 'extreme' action of weaning off fossil fuels a little earlier than we might have otherwise.

 

With peak oil, gas, and coal all this century... earlier than you think... isn't it a good idea to wean off them earlier rather than later anyway? We need to get off the fossil fuels because they are RUNNING OUT!

[Moontanman]

I'll just give the link to the thread here where it is discussed, as it is rather a more complex impact event than you imagine. :evil:

 

>> Permian impact evidence discussion

 

by Turtle:

What made the Antarctic impact of 250 million years ago unique is the size of the rock -estimated at 25 miles in diameter, moving 10 mps-, the resulting antipodal focusing creating a hot spot resulting in the Siberian traps eruptions (the largest known in the planets history) which caused global warming which drew oxygen out the oceans which allowed sulphur dioxide excreting bacteria to poison the oceans and then the land over a period of several million years and making condition ripe for the rise of the dinos.

 

I'm well aware of the complexity of impact events as well as antipodal focusing. This would seem to support my contention that global warming released huge amounts of methane. Just because a asteroid strike triggered it doesn't make it any less true. We are the trigger now.