Scientists Hit Back at Climate-Change Skeptics

FIFTEEN senior Australian climate scientists have hit back at the resurgence of climate scepticism among the nation’s politicians and the media, warning that the threat from climate change is real, urgent and approaching a series of ‘‘tipping points’’ where it will feed on itself.

‘‘New findings suggest that the situation is, if anything, more serious than the assessment of just a few years ago’’, say the scientists, who include the CSIRO’s Dr Michael Raupach and Dr John Church, along with the Australian National University’s Professor Will Steffen, who recently completed a report on climate change science for the Federal Government.
...

Source

Do any of these "tipping points" involve global temperatures plummeting?

Just curious.


And if the sudden drop in temperatures is "normal climate variability" then why is that not the case with the observed rise in temperatures?


And if global warming is all man made then why have we observed warming trends on most of the other planets in the solar system?

Oh and I really like this part:

The scientists are particularly concerned about claims that the earth is cooling because temperature increases since 2002 have not happened as fast those in the previous few years.

The truth is probably more like this:

"The scientists are particularly concerned that the earth is cooling because temperature increases since 2002 have not happened as fast those in the previous few years."

All the models state that global warming is a mechanism that feeds on itself which is in DIRECT contradiction with the observed evidence which has seen a decline in the warming trend, followed by a fairly significant drop in temperatures last year.

These people are getting desperate and it's beginning to show.

Yep, they cant hide this for too much longer.

I saw this youtube about al gore an the two others that started this ManMade GW hype years back, but two of them realized they had made mistakes, and the evidence pointed to the fact , it was NOT manmade GW, but Gore refused to go along since he had his fingers in the money jar already.

One of them died some years back , and ironicly, Gore got the very award for his 'work' by the very same foundation that the man who died started.

i dont remember their names, but still..

reply to post by ChemBreather


To clarify: Al Gore did not create the man-made Global Warming 'hype'.

I would be more convinced there was a problem if there were any "real solutions" being proposed. All we have seen are "MONEY SCAMS" so why in the hell would we believe them?

We have solutions:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That and it seems they cannot make up their minds: 35 years ago we were all going to die from a new Ice Age

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Prominent scientists at the time were even making wild propositions about the drastic steps world governments should take to counter the cooling trend. In some of the more extreme cases, there were plans to divert Arctic rivers and to cover the poles with black soot to melt the polar ice caps to stave off the next ice age.

(Yeah, glad we didn't do that now aren't we?)

CARBON CREDITS are a SCAM!

But you have to get people to "buy" the problem and "Believe" were all going to die before they can tax us into oblivion while we have dumb azz smiles on our faces because "we are saving the earth"

Reminds me of Idiocracy.... it's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes! duh duh duh


Not to mention it is hard to buy it when the "promoters" have been blatantly caught falsifying data on numerous occasions... Not mistakes mind you but blatantly falsifying data.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by eniac

FIFTEEN senior Australian climate scientists have hit back at the resurgence of climate scepticism among the nation’s politicians and the media, warning that the threat from climate change is real, urgent and approaching a series of ‘‘tipping points’’ where it will feed on itself.

‘‘New findings suggest that the situation is, if anything, more serious than the assessment of just a few years ago’’, say the scientists, who include the CSIRO’s Dr Michael Raupach and Dr John Church, along with the Australian National University’s Professor Will Steffen, who recently completed a report on climate change science for the Federal Government.
...

Source

Wow, 15 scientists.

Thats not that much is it, for a global money making schemes defence?

reply to post by XXXN3O



Erm.

It's a local report from Australia - and the scientists are major players.

FYI, from the source article:

The scientists are particularly concerned about claims that the earth is cooling because temperature increases since 2002 have not happened as fast those in the previous few years.

‘‘Some people have seen that as evidence that the whole game is off, that climate change is not an issue,’’ Dr Raupach said. ‘‘In fact it’s normal climate variability.’’

The overall warming trend has been inexorably upwards, the scientists say.

Translation, also FYI - The overall trend is warming, inexorably and steadily, although there is some occasional cooling (normal variability).

reply to post by soficrow


Here is the issue... OK, I believe in Man-made global warming.... Now what?

There are NO solutions being proposed. Only money scams that line the pockets of paper traders and politicians invested in so called green ventures who stand to make out like bandits.

If we are in such dire straights... where are the real solutions that don't involve blatant corruption and to add, carbon credits have been proven to do NOTHING on curbing CO2.

www.newscientist.com...

So, we have real solutions. James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia theory and who's work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion has solutions but it all comes down to a money scam.

2009 promises to be an exciting time for James Lovelock. But the originator of the Gaia theory, which describes Earth as a self-regulating planet, has a stark view of the future of humanity. He tells Gaia Vince we have one last chance to save ourselves - and it has nothing to do with nuclear power

Your work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?

Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It's absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt - that's an awful lot of countryside.
What about work to sequester carbon dioxide?

That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done.

So are we doomed?

There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.

Would it make enough of a difference?

Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.

reply to post by soficrow


I dont really give a damn if its a local report, it is regarding global warming which is in itself a supposed global situation. Therefore it is a global report regardless as the subject is a global one.

Anyone can be a major player. Theres a guy around here who is a major player at litter cleaning.

That doesnt mean anything apart from the fact that he makes money from it.

Most of scientific studies are biased.

They are backed by cash and influenced by investors.

I know from experience that many results are fabricated due to external influences, ie, cash.

As soon as we recieve studies that are not backed by cash I might sway my views on that but in todays world nothing works without cash unfortunately. Guess we will all just have to do with it for now and play along with the scam that is government backed just like this article.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by XXXN3O]

3 factors to global human disruption: population density, resource depletion, and gender imbalance. Some people call these factors global warming. The results are mass migration, famine, death, unrest, terrorism, pandemics... and more.

Addressing population density is done by some governments with biological weapons, war, lack of health care.
Addressing resource depletion the oligarchs find another industry to satisfy their greed.
Addressing gender imbalance usually results in human trafficking.

We are not at the peak of all of these factors and the warnings are legit. Call it global warming or whatever you want but the results are all the same... the future is grim for those who can't escape the factors.

The worlds largest scientific society are calling for the resignation of their editor in chief because he released a statement basically saying that climate change is an established fact. I think that the American Chemical Society scientists are more in tune with the facts.
www.newswithviews.com...

Originally posted by MrVertigo
Do any of these "tipping points" involve global temperatures plummeting?

LOL really? Where is the proof?

[And if the sudden drop in temperatures is "normal climate variability" then why is that not the case with the observed rise in temperatures?

Again, what proof?

And if global warming is all man made then why have we observed warming trends on most of the other planets in the solar system?

There hasn't been. This is the silliest rebuttal of all.
Guess the information is from all those weather stations posted all over the solar system.
If the solar system has heated up enough to warm Pluto, or even Neptune and Jupiter, the Earth would be jerky.

[All the models state that global warming is a mechanism that feeds on itself which is in DIRECT contradiction with the observed evidence which has seen a decline in the warming trend, followed by a fairly significant drop in temperatures last year.

Again, what cooling trend?

Even if we have been cool for one year, exactly what bearing does one year have over the whole picture?

These people are getting desperate and it's beginning to show.

The same could be said for this post.

Exactly what mechanism are you talking about?
Can you explain what mechanism is driving the heating and cooling of theEarth?

And if the solar system is heating up, then how could we have a cooling period.

You have contradicted yourself in the same post.

What I always find so funny about skeptics is that most Americans believe we have powerful nuclear bombs. Only a few could drive the climate into a nuclear winter for ten years or more.

So in the span of a few hours that it would take for a nuclear bomb to reach its location, we can drive the planet to a nuclear winter, yet 5-6 billion people and 85 BILLION barrels of oil being burned each day couldn't possibly effect a planet, that is only 25,000 miles around.

The Earth is only 19,680,000. If my math is correct, that means we burn 231529 barrels of oil per square mile of planet each day.

As I understand it, the warming trend has been declining since 2002. This is also referenced in the article.

And did the global mean temperature not drop 0.1 degrees Celsius last year?
I believe this is fairly widely acknowledged.

Now this may all be coincidence, just as it may be a coincidence that it is happening at the same time as a very deep solar minimum, but personally I don't believe that it is.

And as for the quote, which I'm assuming is from another thread, it's true that we don't have weather stations on the other planets (well Mars maybe)

But we do have telescopes. Fairly large ones.

There's even one in space

reply to post by nixie_nox


I believe you are referring to Al Gores classic analogy:

If you put a frog in a pot of water and gradually increase the heat it will never know that it's being boiled alive.
But if you nuke the frog then it's dead, dead, dead.

Morale: Be nice to frogs even if they don't know that you're hurting them.

reply to post by MrVertigo


How do you judge weather by a telescope?

They don't even know why storms appear and disappear on Jupiter, much less what temperature it is.

Like I said, even if they could tell that the ss was heating up, which they can't, if Neptune and Pluto were heating up, we would be a boiling frog.lol

I don't remember that analogy, very cute. I happen to love frogs! So be nice to froggies.

reply to post by nixie_nox


It's true that there's a lot we don't understand about Jupiter.
One of the fascinating things is that it's emitting more energy than can be accounted for, suggesting that there are mechanisms at work that we do not understand yet.

But it's fairly easy to look through a telescope and observe that the activity on Jupiter is increasing and that's exactly was has been happening.

It's fairly easy to look at Mars and see that it's polar caps are melting.

And so forth.


But obviously this cannot be explained by variations in the heat of the sun because we can measure those fairly accurately and the sun has not been getting hotter in any significant way (Which is good news for frogs I suppose )

So another mechanism must be at work here.

nixie_nox, that post is why no one takes the "global warmers" seriously.

Let us see just how many factual errors one post can contain...

Originally posted by nixie_nox
What I always find so funny about skeptics is that most Americans believe we have powerful nuclear bombs. Only a few could drive the climate into a nuclear winter for ten years or more.
So in the span of a few hours that it would take for a nuclear bomb to reach its location, we can drive the planet to a nuclear winter...

A nuclear winter would take a majority of the stockpiles of the Soviet Union and America to pull off.

The hypothesis put forth by people like Sagan, is that if enough nukes dropped on forested regions of the US and Russia it would ignite a "worldwide" forest fire. The fire would result in enough smoke to block the sun creating what they called a nuclear winter.

The people who came up with the rediculous hypothesis also admit that most cities are not anywhere near a dense enough forest. Since most of our nuclear stockpile is aimed at "populations centers" as a deterent (see game theory), it is safe to assume that a nuclear winter wouldn't even occur during a large nuclear confrontation.

So unless you have a way to drive a few thousand armed war heads to forests and national parks, there is little threat of a nuclear winter.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
yet 5-6 billion people and 85 BILLION barrels of oil being burned each day couldn't possibly effect a planet, that is only 25,000 miles around.

The Earth is only 19,680,000. If my math is correct, that means we burn 231529 barrels of oil per square mile of planet each day.

Be careful with the number of zeros you put at the end of a number. Those round things really affect their scale!

The world currently produces 85 MILLION (not billion) barrels of oil a day.

There is currently 57,506,055 (not 19,680,000) square miles of land.

That means that we produce about 1.4 barrels of oil per square mile of land.

Our oil production is even less when you consider that more than 2/3rds of our planet is covered by water. 196,939,900 total square miles of planet means we only produce 0.4 barrels of oil per square mile per day.

Jon

reply to post by Voxel


Thanks for doing the math, I thought those numbers cited originally were a bit on the crazy side. Saved me from doing it myself.

I mean 200k per square mile is just a bit over the top, that is more volume in oil than land in the other persons post.

[edit on 8/2/2009 by badmedia]

Global warming is a wrong word to use. It should be global extreme climate. Temperatures increases near the equator, but decrease near the poles, so avg temp will be the same, but extreme in different parts of the world. Some people are to dumb to see this. Warm temperatures cause more precipitation, therefore, causes more rainfall and snow. Snow reflects the sunlight, so u would get cold weather in some areas and very hot weather in another.

However, there is a hole in our geomanetic sphere that allows the radiation to penetrate causing the ice shelf to break in the artic regions.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by amfirst]