Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

2013, the year that was: Energy + Environment

For the past three years it’s been an occasional pleasure and a frequent privilege to work with the academics who contribute to The Conversation’s Environment & Energy section. It’s not just the soil…

The environment has had a tiring year. sillypucci/Flickr

For the past three years it’s been an occasional pleasure and a frequent privilege to work with the academics who contribute to The Conversation’s Environment & Energy section. It’s not just the soil jokes and the hilarious profile pictures: it’s the opportunity to see a whole bunch of actual evidence about environmental issues.

Academic writing is replete with facts. Facts aren’t just awesome because they help you win trivia; they can also be the foundation of evidence-based policy.

Karl-Ludwig G. Poggemann

Here are some facts I’ve learned in 2013.

If we want to keep below 2C of global warming, the IPCC says the world can only burn 275 gigatonnes more of carbon. Others are more generous, allocating the world another 565 gigatonnes. Either way, to hit our climate targets we have to leave most fossil fuel unburned, which is bad news for fossil fuel investment.

Australia’s fair share of emissions cuts if the world is to stay under 2C is somewhere between -15% and -25%.

AAP Image/Rebecca Le May

Global warming hasn’t slowed.

Last summer was Australia’s hottest. 2013 will probably be our hottest year on record. But peak electricity demand isn’t keeping up at all.

While many World Heritage sites have been listed as “in danger”, only two have actually been delisted - one at the request of the country, when they found oil under it.

Taxpayers have spent more than A$200 million to stop 360,000 tonnes of sediment reaching the Great Barrier Reef. Dredging at Abbot Point alone will add 3 million cubic metres of spoil to the ocean around the reef.

The triple bottom line is a charming and convenient fiction.

Australian rice growers have reduced their water use by two-thirds, just by paying attention to soils.

Bill Collison

At the start of the year, Australia had 96 critically endangered species, as defined by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. (Frigatebirds scare other birds into vomiting, then eat the vomit. Despite this, they are on that endangered list).

Christmas Island is filthy with biodiversity and natural wonders.

If you look at the number of people going in the ocean, and the amount of time they spend there, the incidence of shark bites is dropping.

AAP Image/Australian Workers Union

Your home isn’t nearly insulated enough, and neither is mine.

The amount of fuel within 1km of a house is critical in determining whether that house will survive a bushfire - houses need to be away from bush or they will burn. Planned burns further from houses make much less difference. Grazing cattle makes almost no difference at all. And if you want to reduce arson, you’ll be lobbying for greater social justice and equity.

Mining can damage underground water reservoirs, but figuring out whether it will is very complicated, takes a long time, and has to be done across all mines in the area (not mine by mine).

The Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat is adorable.

And finally, not a fact but a feeling: have a great break, and let’s hope the environment gets one in 2014.

Most read stories published in 2013

NASA

Sign in to Favourite

Join the conversation

153 Comments sorted by

  1. Greg North

    Retired Engineer

    Yes Jane, all sorts of stuff happening or not and no doubt there'll be many more years with different records and other stuff happening or not.
    We do courtesy of the internet and global reporting and communications get to hear of much stuff, happening or not than ever before and likely there will always be conflicting interests and thoughts as the planets population does not just increase but many more of that population will be seeking to get services and products as a minority on the planet have enjoyed for more than a few decades, just stretching the gaining of the resources to the limit it seems.
    Such is Life said Ned as his finished.
    I think I read where you Jane were heading elsewhere and if so, all the best with your new directions in the NY and hope you have had a pleasant Xmas.

    report
  2. Dale Bloom

    Analyst

    There did seem to be great concentration of articles on mining, but very few on Australia’s most immediate threat, which is population growth and increasing overall consumption.

    Perhaps this article

    “23 million and counting: why Australia’s population outlook is the envy of the world”

    https://theconversation.com/23-million-and-counting-why-australias-population-outlook-is-the-envy-of-the-world-13660

    With a population about to double in one lifetime, there does seem to be a human population boom as well as a mining boom, which must send shivers down the spine of native animals.

    Nor was there much on the huge amount of resources and energy consumed by cities, and whether they are worth it.

    Perhaps finally there needs to be something on why we live in Australia at all, and what’s it all about.

    report
    1. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Dale Bloom

      "Perhaps finally there needs to be something on why we live in Australia at all, and what’s it all about." That's an interesting point, Dale; we of the hoi polloi would very much please our betters if we would all just vacate Australia until they've finished mining whatever they want.

      report
    2. Dale Bloom

      Analyst

      In reply to David Arthur

      No, no.

      A government agrees to the mine being built.

      Usually the government says that the mine will “create jobs”

      So I am wondering why we continuously need to “create jobs”, and what was wrong with the old jobs?

      report
    3. Greg North

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Dale Bloom

      I suppose Dale, most of us living in Australia because it's where we were brought into our lives and it has been found that we can have quite a reasonable life here, to the extent that there'll be many that will always want to join us.
      That's what it is all about.
      It's probably difficult to put a value on a city though being the sociable beings that we are, we have also no doubt discovered there are many benefits in groups, be they smaller villages, towns or cities.
      Be it people in cities or not, development of societies has found that with needs to be met, resources need to be attained and whilst mining can create a blot on the nearby landscape, collectively, mines are a minute fraction of the earths area.
      Deafforestation is another matter.

      report
    4. Greg North

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Dale Bloom

      " So I am wondering why we continuously need to “create jobs”, and what was wrong with the old jobs? "
      You do get some pleasure out of nmodern conveniences no doubt Dale, your computer just one of them.

      report
    5. Peter Redshaw

      Retired

      In reply to Dale Bloom

      Dale, I can understand the concern on population growth when we see the current 7 billion world population growing to a potential 9-12 billions. When we have that sort of external population pressure a focus on Australia's 23 billion is a false if not misleading argument.

      What we really need to do is focus on the real issues. The drivers of population growth, the high levels of consumption and the sustainability of the way we use our natural resources. Which includes the recycling of those…

      Read more
    6. Dale Bloom

      Analyst

      In reply to Peter Redshaw

      There isn’t such a thing as a renewable energy source, and it has become something of a dangerous myth.

      In fact, many of the materials for so-called renewable energy sources are not finite, and are fast running out.

      https://theconversation.com/metals-and-minerals-will-be-the-next-finite-resource-shortfall-20170

      Population growth in our country is being mostly driven by immigration, and it appears to some that we must grow our population to “create jobs” and increase our wealth.

      Considering the amount of immigration that has already occurred in Australia, and Australia’s current debt levels, I do think growing our population now needs more thought.

      report
    7. Peter Redshaw

      Retired

      In reply to Dale Bloom

      Dale, maybe we need to take the argument down a different track and use this governments own argument against the saving of the car industry in this country and with it the loss of Holden. The argument was the cost of subsidizing the industry per job to the return we got from the car maker.

      We should use the same argument in regards to the mining industry. What is the actual cost of subsidizing the mining industry in this country to the actual return of income earned by the mining industry…

      Read more
    8. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Dale Bloom

      "In fact, many of the materials for so-called renewable energy sources are not finite, and are fast running out."

      Dale, I'm not in favour of that renewable energy you link to but do you know of ANY resource, let alone renewable energy resource,
      that has ever run out?

      report
    9. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Dale Bloom

      Australias population has trebled in my lifetime and hopefully will quadruple before I die. If it only doubles in the lifetime of my grandson that would surprise me.
      As a wealthy attractive country we need to plan for a continuing population increase mainly based on migration. From a global population and environment perspective our rapidly increasing population is not a problem if it reduces population and environment pressures in other areas.

      report
  3. David Arthur

    resistance gnome

    Thanks Ms Rawson, and best wishes for your new year.

    report
  4. Akshat Rathi

    Science and Data Editor at The Conversation

    "Frigatebirds scare other birds into vomiting, then eat the vomit. Despite this, they are on that endangered list"

    :)

    report
    1. Greg North

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Akshat Rathi

      I certainly needed to know that Akshat, especially seeing as I was thinking of some Xmas pudding for breakfast and I bet you get a few jibes about what you process too.
      Seasons greetings all the same.

      report
    1. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim,
      With several global temperature records to choose from why do you choose the only one, and the longest timeframe,that supports your argument rather than choosing the average, or a scientifically relevant timeframe.
      There are thousands of discrete facts that could be construed as not supporting the science relating to global warming. It is only by synthesising the millions of relevant facts showing that global warming is occurring that you can see the truth of the issue. Cherry picking a few facts is just fooling yourself.

      report
    2. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Rennie

      David, if you checked the other links there you would have seen how much "synthesising" is going on and for that reason the NASA RSS data is as honest as any and more than most.

      But even using all of the data including some of the "synthesised" data, the song Jane is singing still doesn't make the top ten:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.3/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.66/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000.8/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.3/plot/gistemp/from:2001.66/plot/wti/from:2000.9/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000.8/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/plot/rss/from:1996.8/plot/rss/from:1996.8/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/plot/uah/from:2005/trend

      And BTW, global sea ice is ~ 1 million sq klms above average as well:

      http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

      But that's just cherry picking, hey?

      report
    3. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Rennie

      "It is only by synthesising the millions of relevant facts showing that global warming is occurring that you can see the truth of the issue."

      Is "synthesising" an academic way of saying faking, cooking the books etc?

      Ignoring those "millions" for the time being David, how about just giving us half a dozen honest ones?

      report
    4. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      On the other hand, Jim, here's something which you didn't learn through all your working years.

      Greenhouse gases let short-wave sunlight in and selectively retard the rates at which longer wavelengths of energy escape from earth to space. It necessarily (ie unavoidably) follows that thermal energy near earth's surface is controlled by atmospheric greenhouse gases.

      Once you comprehend that, you'll be able to understand the processes that your grandchildren must suffer as a consequence of your actioon.

      report
    5. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      As you suggest, there's no need to synthesise millions of facts, Mr Inglis; matter of fact, here are the seven simple observations for which any explanation must account.

      Observation 1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy.

      Observation 2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy.

      Observation 3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy.

      Observation 4. Satellite observations show decreasing emission to space of this long-wave energy, at EXACTLY THE…

      Read more
    6. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      David, some of your obs are in error.

      You need to check your facts and back them up with evidence.

      Obs 1 & 2 pass muster.

      Obs 3, was probably falsified 100 y ago.

      http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

      Obs 4, NOAA has been measuring increasing OLR over the last 30 years which falsifies the GHG theory:

      http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/AGW_Falsified_Michael_Hammer.pdf

      Lindzen and Choi have also shown this to be the case.

      Obs 5, Global sea ice is ~ 1…

      Read more
    7. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim,
      to be honest use a scientific time frame (30 years) and a single starting point rather than cherry picking specific starting dates that suit your claims.
      If you must use an unscientific time frame at least use a single starting date. You are simply demonstrating the need for a scientific approach rather than just choosing your personal favourites. Choose any single source and calculate how few graphs are negative or flat, With 360 months in a thirty year sample it is inevitable than some periods will be negative or flat. THis does not mean that the long term trend is flat; it is as has been repeatedly demonstrated about +0.14 per decade for the past 60 years despite every decade having several years of declining temperatures.
      As this has been repeatedly demonstrated, the fact that you ignore it indicates that you choose to be ignorant.

      report
    8. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim,
      the cad press article is classic cherry picking. Compare it with the NASA data which shows November was the hottest November on record. The NASA data uses measurements from around the world. The cad press article just chooses a few local extremes.

      report
    9. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim,
      have just checked another of you references which compares a 1979 estimate of Northern Hemisphere temperatures with a more recent estimate of global temperatures over the same time frame.
      It is obvious that the two records are very similar as one would expect, when one contains one half of the data used in the other.
      One would not expect the two graphs to be identical.
      As we have several long term records showing the global pattern shown in your article, there is no reason to suspect tampering by scientists.
      The fact that the satellite records closely match the land based records in the 35 years since 1979 confirms that the measurements are very close approximations of the actual temperatures.

      report
    10. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Rennie

      "to be honest use a scientific time frame (30 years)"

      Briffa stated that AGW would be in doubt if it didn't warm for 17 years.

      NASA RSS shows that it hasn't and it is arguably less manipulated than most.

      But there are many measurements and I am showing for how long they each show no warming.

      How is that cherry picking?

      report
    11. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim,
      NASA explain all their variations to the data on their web site. Few deniers bother to check them out or validate the claim that they all increase the warming.
      All the global measures give very similar figures so minor adjustments on one set do not change the overall pattern.

      report
    12. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim,
      If you don't know why choosing specific starting points to generate your desired outcome is cherry picking then you have clearly never done enough study to understand the basics of bad research.

      report
    13. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Rennie

      "NASA explain all their variations to the data on their web site."

      Got a link to those David?

      Years ago Hansen was lead screaming back to the fact that 1934 was still the warmest year in the US but since then it has been swamped again with adjustments when, with ever increasing UHI considerations and temps that weren't hotter than 1934, it should have been going the other way.

      Raw data always trumps subjective "data".

      report
    14. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Rennie

      David, you need to understand that when I wish to point out that temperatures haven't increased from a certain date then I have to start at that date.

      According to your logic, in order not to "cherry pick" I should include all time and only say that in the earth's lifetime the earth has cooled considerably.

      That would be right too but it would not be making my point.

      Research means analysing all aspects and periods of AGW and if you wish to deny that, currently, the earth has not warmed for periods that vary according to who is making the "adjustments" then it is you that is in denial and also very selective in your research.

      report
    15. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Rennie

      David, did you read and /or follow that court case about NIWA in my link above?

      NIWA made many adjustments subjectively and argued that it was from "expert opinion" but could never give specific reasons.

      The high court accepted those "expert opinions" without ever asking for evidence.

      The warming was based on authority, not evidence.

      There is no appeal and climate fraud has been committed.

      report
    16. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Henry, I'm still waiting for Jim to show me the sea level graph which proves that sea levels are the same on the gold coast, as in 1950, and even going down. It must have been "pulled" off one of his bogus sites since he first eagerly looked at it. Other than that he looks out the window, and has a bench he observes. He's not worth the effort.

      report
    17. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Yes cherry picking is the order of the day for the deniers, just select data which confirms their bias/ideology- take your (cherry) pick!

      There are plenty of bogus or suspect sites which cater for those who subscribe to the denialist mentality.

      Peer-review Jim, peer-review is the go all else is "scientism" practised by "scienticians".

      report
    18. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Henry, if you have a point to make, make it yourself and post a link in evidence.

      report
    19. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Alice, if you had been paying attention you would have read where I said the Gold Coast has no long term tide gauges but I have many good benchmarks going back in some cases to WW2 which show that there is no observable SLR.

      report
    20. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      "Peer-review Jim, peer-review is the go all else is "scientism" practised by "scienticians"."

      Henry, peer review is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

      Read Phil Jones' words on using peer review to keep any unwelcome science out of the IPCC process from those inconvenient climategate emails.

      And then stand on your high moral ground and tell me how good peer review is.

      Science is science regardless of who says so.

      report
    21. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Ditto

      Henry, if you have a point to make, make it yourself and post a link in evidence.

      report
    22. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      "Yes cherry picking is the order of the day for the deniers, just select data which confirms their bias/ideology- take your (cherry) pick!"

      Henry, the only period in the earths billions of years of climate that can be used to argue AGW is the last quarter of the last century.

      Do you think that might be cherry picking?

      report
    23. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      I think i made my point Jim, that all the links you provide as "evidence' is to denier sites.

      Peer-review is the best science we have, the fact that you choose to denigrate it shows you are not interested in evidence-based information.

      report
    24. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      From the site you link to: "Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased correspondingly over the past 50 years".
      http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/
      See also:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-ice-volume-not-recovering.html

      Also :

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

      There are multiple lines of evidence which show the planet is becoming warmer, the oceans are warming and the long term impact will not be positive for humanity.

      report
    25. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      I can't speak for David Rennie but I think that by "synthesising" he means aggregating millions of relevant facts and if this is what he does mean then I think he is spot on and your insinuation "Is "synthesising" an academic way of saying faking, cooking the books etc?" is an unwarranted allegation.

      report
    26. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim, In order not to cherry pick you need to use scientifically acceptable time frames. Short term trends vary considerably and are therefore not considered important by scientists.
      There are many factors influencing the temperature in the short term which is why the thirty year time frame is used to reduce the impact of short term variations.

      report
    27. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "Research examining the causes of climate change in the northern hemisphere over the past 1000 years has shown that until the year 1800, the key driver of periodic changes in climate was volcanic eruptions. These tend to prevent sunlight reaching Earth, causing cool, drier weather. Since 1900, greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of climate change".

      From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131222161813.htm

      report
    28. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      "Peer-review is the best science we have, the fact that you choose to denigrate it shows you are not interested in evidence-based information"

      Henry, there is all sorts of discredited "science" that has been peer reviewed.

      Just as there has no doubt been good science that hasn't been peer reviewed.

      Phil Jones was prepared to subvert the whole process of peer review in order to keep science papers he didn't approve of out of the IPCC.

      The fact that you know this and still claim that peer review is the ultimate science does not say much about your honesty.

      It's the message that counts, not how it is published.

      report
    29. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Henry, the world doesn't live in the northern hemisphere.

      Global sea ice as per my link above is ~ 1million sq klms above average today.

      The planet is not becoming warmer and in fact has not warmed for up to 17+ years according to NASA RSS above.

      Oceans are warming less now than at any time in the history of ocean temperatures.

      And if you claiming that the unmeasured and unmeasurable deeps are warming please show any mechanism whereby that can ever happen awa evidence that it has.

      report
    30. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      But when to synthesise also means to make artificial or to fake, an ironic choice of word, however appropriate it may be.

      report
    31. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "Observation 3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy."
      Refer Blackbody Emission Curves (figure) on the Energy Balance and Planetary Temperature page of the ACS (American Chemical Society) Climate Science Toolkit http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance.html

      You see, Mr Inglis, Atmospheric Physics is dependent on molecular behaviour - which is chemistry. It's irrelevant whether or not rock-kickers (geologists) reckon they've falsiifed…

      Read more
    32. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to John Phillip

      >1m sea level rise by 2100.
      More severe droughts - by 2100, every dry spell will be what we here at 2013 think is a drought.
      More severe storms.
      Mosquito-borne diseases will become endemic in temperate regions.

      For more on what Jim's grandchildren can anticipate, have a look for "Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project" at Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http:www.pnas.org; http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=Inter-Sectoral+Impact+Model+Intercomparison+Project&sortspec=date&submit=Submit&andorexactfulltext=phrase)

      report
    33. John Phillip
      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to David Arthur

      That's lovely David. Unfortunately it is entirely irrelevant to your statement re Jim's grandchildren and the consequences of HIS actions. You are taking a situation over which Jim can have no influence or effect whatsoever and then applying the 'guilt' of theorised/modelled consequences to him as an individual.

      report
    34. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      My answer to your Obs 4 also falsifies your Obs 3.

      OLR as measured by NOAA is increasing.

      Obs 5, Global sea ice is at record levels. The Arctic has regained much sea ice awa the Antarctic being exceptionally high.

      Obs 6, the Terrestrial Reference Frame error makes GRACE as well as Topex Poseidon Jason faulty measurement systems.
      NASA JPL admits it and is putting up a new system to fix it.

      Terrestrial ice measurement is flawed. SLR is exaggerated over 100%.

      Obs 7, I didn't introduce…

      Read more
    35. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Pity you offer no more evidence than assertions. That makes your claims dubious in the extreme

      report
    36. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "The planet is not becoming warmer and in fact has not warmed for up to 17+ years according to NASA RSS above".

      Nice try Jim but no cigar. Most of the warming has gone into the oceans but the land has still warmed as the link below makes clear.

      The IPCC (which takes NASA findings into account) also does not support your claims:Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
      changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.

      I quote: "The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
      concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased".
      http://www.ipcc.ch/ (Summary for policy makers.
      and:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

      report
    37. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      As I said it was NOT meant that way and it is disingenuous of you to try to depict it in a sinister or dishonest light.

      report
    38. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      "As I said it was NOT meant that way and it is disingenuous of you to try to depict it in a sinister or dishonest light."

      You may well be right Henry, and it may not have been MEANT that way but you surely don't deny that it is being DONE that way?

      report
    39. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      " Most of the warming has gone into the oceans "

      The most unmanipulated data on temperatures is from the satellites and RSS shows no warming for over the last 17 plus years and UAH shows GAT lower than it was in 1988 when Hansen turned off the aircon and started all the kerfuffle.

      The measured oceans are warming less than ever and the unmeasured oceans we just don't know about.

      Rate of SLR has not changed and observed SLR is virtually non-existent so your snow and ice diminishing is just not true.

      I've posted those links several times.

      But I will admit that GHGs have increased but that only falsifies the GHG theory.

      report
    40. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to John Phillip

      "You are taking a situation over which Jim can have no influence or effect whatsoever and then applying the 'guilt' of theorised/modelled consequences to him as an individual." I disagree.

      This is a democracy, in which politicians spin their message according to the opinions their "researchers" read. So long as people like Jim persist in their assertions, the politicians are advised that there is a significant proportion of opinion which Denies observations, and which can be exploited to get voted in.

      report
    41. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "There is all sorts of discredited "science" that has been peer reviewed".

      Please supply evidence of that!

      report
    42. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "But I will admit that GHGs have increased but that only falsifies the GHG theory".

      Far from it Jim, but I can see you will NEVER accept reasoned, true science. I have supplied links that completely refute your claims.

      Leave you to it !

      report
    43. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Mr Inglis, here's where I set you straight a while ago ("https://theconversation.com/why-the-infrastructure-pm-cant-give-antarctica-the-cold-shoulder-21059";)

      Mr Inglis, I've quoted Shepherd et al's reconciliation finds for 1992 to 2011 that terrestrial ice mass changes are equivalent to mean annual rates of
      Greenland: –142 ± 49 Gt/yr = -142 Gt/yr ± 35%

      East Antarctica: +14 ± 43 Gt/yr
      West Antarctica: –65 ± 26 Gt/yr
      Antarctic Peninsula: –20 ± 14 Gt/yr,
      _______________________________________
      Terrestrial Antarctica -71 ± 52 Gt/yr = -71 Gt/yr ± 73%

      AS PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED, your concerns about inaccuracy are ALREADY incorporated into the uncertainties of these estimates. That is, what GRASP is going to do is tighten up the precision of the measurements.

      So it's time you started begging forgiveness from those who must endure the choices you make and lies you choose to believe, the people you tell that you love them.

      report
    44. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "Falsifies the GHG theory" ???

      You blithering idiot, it is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration to change WITHOUT altering climate conditions at planet surface ie where your grandchildren live.

      report
    45. John Phillip
      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to David Arthur

      David, I get your point but disagree with it for two reasons. Firstly. the guilt trip is not an argument. It The second point is one that I've argued here before and that is that unless you can quantify the effects that action by Australia will have on global warming/climate change, you're going to have an impossible task trying to attribute that guilt to individuals (and those countries that produce statistically irrelevant emissions.)

      report
    46. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      " what GRASP is going to do is tighten up the precision of the measurements"

      "Tighten up the precision" hey David?

      That's a very euphemistic way of putting it.

      They have never stopped adjusting it and now they realise it is unfixable.

      When the sea ice is increasing why would high altitude ice be melting?

      report
    47. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      You could try the "Hockey Stick" for starters.

      report
    48. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to John Phillip

      As implied, Mr Phillips, I don't have the wherewithal to quantify consequences that are qualitatively deleterious, such as wholesale destruction of climate-dependent artificial ecosystems aka agriculture. In that case, all I can do is point out that large-scale famines will set up conditions for either or both of mass starvation and war.

      That there will also be large-scale disruption due to changed distribution patterns of tropical disease is beyond doubt. Bleating on about cost-benefit analyses…

      Read more
    49. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "When the sea ice is increasing why would high altitude ice be melting?" Fresh water freezes at higher temperature than salt water, and less saline water freezes at higher temperatures than more saline water.

      Increased area of sea ice around Antarctica is not evidence of lower temperature, it is evidence of ocean stratification.

      "Falsifies the GHG theory" ??? As previously pointed out, it is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration to change WITHOUT altering climate conditions at planet surface.

      report
    50. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      "You blithering idiot, it is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration to change WITHOUT altering climate conditions"

      Yes, climate conditions will probably change, they do that all the time but you and I don't know in what way.

      When they have been higher in the past with more cooling and lower in the past with more warming, and the climate models can't get it right, I suggest the GHG theory doesn't have as much to do with climate as you would like to believe.

      report
    51. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "When they have been higher in the past with more cooling and lower in the past with more warming,"

      I am referring to CO2e here rather than water vapour.

      report
    52. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      "Increased area of sea ice around Antarctica is not evidence of lower temperature, it is evidence of ocean stratification."

      Whereas the reduction thereof in the Arctic is evidence of?

      report
    53. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      '"Falsifies the GHG theory" ??? As previously pointed out, it is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration to change WITHOUT altering climate conditions at planet surface.'

      David, there are no historical analogues for CO2-induced climate change; but there are many examples of climate change-induced CO2 variations.

      report
    54. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      See if you can see yourself and your attitudes in the points below, Jim

      Six aspects of denial

      1. Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science…

      Read more
    55. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "climate conditions will probably change, … but you and I don't know in what way." Err, we actually have a pretty good idea of how climate conditions are going to change over the next century, thanks to heat already stored in the oceans since atmospheric CO2 first exceeded 350 ppm in 1988. Sea levels will rise by at least 1m on average, and weather patterns will become more pronounced; dry periods will become drier, and wet periods more wet against a backdrop of generally increasing temperatures…

      Read more
    56. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Henry, please stop trying to call me a denier.

      Deniers are people who won't accept the evidence before them and on this site you and David fill that bill much better than I do.

      report
    57. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      "Err, we actually have a pretty good idea of how climate conditions are going to change over the next century,"

      You mean like those fully informed, state-of-the-art GCMs keep telling us?

      Those brilliant models that have every bit of climate science ever dreamed of as being applicable to our current greenhouse problem programmed into them.

      If there's one thing we do know by now it's that our thermal future won't be predicted by them.

      David, we are still 2c lower than prior interglacials where CO2 was 100 ppm lower than now.

      According to by far the greater number of studies our current GAT is lower than the MWP, RWP and HTM.

      Even Richard Feynman said that science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

      You need to be a sceptical optimist.

      report
    58. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      As it happens, I've just taken a break from reading Schurer, Bett & Hegerl's "Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium" (I subscribe to Nature Geoscience) which is based on modelling hindcasting to constrain (that's the word scientists use where the rest of us would say "get an idea of") the extent to which climate variation over the last millennium is attributable to variation in solar output.

      To do this, they use computer models, and I come back here to find you…

      Read more
    59. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      "To do this, they use computer models, and I come back here to find you shooting off about computer models."

      You mean I just narrowly saved you from non-questioning pessimism in the nick of time?

      David , I'd give that "stored ocean heat" a rest if I were you. In case you haven't checked recently, GAT is currently cooler than it was in 1988:

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

      And the South Pole is currently cooler than it was in 1978:

      http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c019b034e608b970c-pi

      But I guess that's just cherry picking....

      report
    60. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      David, WRT the ">95% of retained heat is in the oceans", what do your friends, those modern GCMs, say about the quantity of that retained heat during previous interglacials?

      Or don't they have any idea either?

      report
    61. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "GAT is currently cooler than it was in 1988... But I guess that's just cherry picking...." My oath that's cherry-picking: the 1988 measurement you select is at a UAH dataset local (1987-1989) peak, the current result you pick (Nov 2013) is at a UAH dataset local minimum.

      Anyway, I give no credence to this Spencer bloke: he and Braswell, along with your other "guru" Lindzen & Choi, have been discredited (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dessler-2011-Debunks-Roy-Spencer-And-Richard-Lindzen.html

      Read more
    62. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      "the 1988 measurement you select"

      YOU selected 1988 David. I just responded.....and you call it cherry picking.

      A bit hysterical, don't you think?

      Quoting SKS' use of Andy Dessler to debunk L&C and S&B is simply hubristic rubbish.

      You don't discuss the science, you simply play the man.

      Very unscientific

      They were years ahead of Dessler and came to the opposite and more logical conclusion on feedbacks.

      Dessler essentially says warming causes fewer clouds.

      L&C and S&B say that fewer clouds cause warming.

      Dessler's idea is what's programmed into the GCMs

      That's one of the major reasons the GCMs are almost always wrong.

      If you are going to consider yourself a sceptical optimist you really need to broaden both your mind and your choice of reading matter.

      report
    63. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      "No need for you to brag about me not quoting models."

      David. I'm just waiting for your explanation [based on all that knowledge you've gained through reading] as to why it was hotter in earlier interglacials with lower atmo CO2.

      You said: " We know that oceans warmed up during previous interglacials because that's where lots of the increase in atmospheric CO2 came from. "

      But if CO2 levels were still 100 ppm lower than today and it was 2c warmer, where was all that heat-producing CO2 hiding?

      Could the GHG theory possibly be wrong, d'you think?

      report
    64. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Why was it hotter in earlier interglacials with lower CO2. I'll capitalise this so that maybe you'll understand.

      BECAUSE WE'RE NOWHERE NEAR CATCHING UP WITH ATMOSPHERIC CO2 = 300 PPM, LET ALONE 400 PPM. WE'VE GOT TO WAIT FOR OCEANS AND CRYOSPHERE TO CATCH UP.

      At current net accumulation of energy (PROGRESS ARTICLE "An update on Earth's energy balance in light of the latest global observations", Stephens et al, Nature Geoscience 5, 691–696 (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1580) of ~0.6W.m^-2, it would…

      Read more
    65. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      "But before the oceans can even start warming, they've got a lot of Greenland and Antarctic ice to melt."

      Yes they have, David, and with the land and ocean not warming it is only your darling, ill-programmed models that make the claim that it will happen.

      But their track record is not good so it is now time for you to make the appropriate adjustments to your biased mind and become the sceptical optimist you say you are.

      Amongst our overwhelming ignorance of the cosmos there is one small…

      Read more
    66. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "Yes they have, David, and with the land and ocean not warming it is only your darling, ill-programmed models that make the claim that it will happen."

      1. "land and ocean not warming"? False.
      2. "your ... models"? False.
      3. "only ... models that make the claim that it will happen". False.
      As explained earlier in this thread, heat is earth's heat-storing fluids (atmosphere and oceans) as a consequence of molecular properties (greenhouse gas molecules).
      This has been known since the work of John Tyndall (~1858), long before there were computer models. As previously advised, your apparent ignorance can be resolved by reference to the various references which I've furnished.

      report
    67. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "The land and the oceans are NOT warming ..." False.
      "... as per my links above ..." Err, links to fabulously well-renumerated opinions, not actual measurements.
      "... 96.7% of your darling GCMs ..." GCM's are nothing to do with me mate, I don't know why you continue with that line. Are you suffering some derangement?
      "... continue to make wildly incorrect, overheated predictions:" as previously noted, I observe that models are evermore useful tools as understanding of climate science and knowledge of earth improves through observation.

      "http://www.drroyspencer.com/"; Err, I've already pointed out how, despite his being well-renumerted, his published work is, sooner or later, rebutted by someone who bothers to so do on what would otherwise be a pleasant Sunday spent with their families.

      report
    68. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "The land and the oceans are NOT warming ..." False.
      "... as per my links above ..." Err, links to fabulously well-renumerated opinions, not actual measurements.
      "... 96.7% of your darling GCMs ..." GCM's are nothing to do with me mate, I don't know why you continue with that line. Are you suffering some derangement?
      "... continue to make wildly incorrect, overheated predictions:" as previously noted, I observe that models are evermore useful tools as understanding of climate science and knowledge of earth improves through observation.

      "http://www.drroyspencer.com/"; Err, I've already pointed out how, despite his being well-renumerated, his published work is, sooner or later, rebutted by someone who bothers to so do on what would otherwise be a pleasant Sunday spent with their families.

      report
    69. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      Yes it's a sure sign of blithering when you have to post ad hom drivel like this twice.

      "I've run out of anything worth while to say but I must repeat it."

      report
    70. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      "land and ocean not warming"? False.

      More alarmist rubbish from a dodgy source:

      "According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.

      Since then the sun has been getting quieter.

      By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years.

      Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.

      He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.

      Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%."

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist

      report
    71. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Mr Inglis, all published attempts by Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and their colleagues that attempt to refute climate science have been rebutted, and yet you repeatedly insist on citing them.

      On each such occasion, I point out that their published work has been rebutted, you accuse me of repeatedly "posting ad hom drivel".

      If you no longer have the mental faculties to recall that your preferred gurus have been rebutted, in all politeness I have little choice but to gently point out to you that your remarks are worthless.

      You write that you have run out of anything worthwhile to say, but that you must repeat it. I applaud this realisation on your part, and encourage you to seek further treatment.

      report
    72. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      "Mr Inglis, all published attempts by Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and their colleagues that attempt to refute climate science have been rebutted, and yet you repeatedly insist on citing them."

      David, there are just so many things here you don't get.

      Mostly intentionally but not always.

      It is perfectly normal for people to refute others. It's like this debate here. It's called having the last word. But it doesn't necessarily prove anything.

      If you have a point to make, make it and show evidence or a link to evidence.

      But lift your game and play the ball.

      Not the man.

      report
    73. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      So what if the sun's heading for a new minimum? Last time there was a solar minimum, atmospheric CO2 was ~275 ppm; it's now 45% higher ~400 ppm.

      Anyway, Andrew Schurer and colleagues ("Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium" Nature Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo2040) have found that solar variation has had very small influence on climate over the last millennium compared to vulcanism (ie volcanoes) up to the 19th century, and greenhouse gas increases since…

      Read more
    74. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Mr Inglis, I don't think you understand what refutation in the peer-reviewed literature means; it means the refuted work is wrong; no ifs, no buts, just WRONG. End of story.

      You post-modernists, with your "what I claim to be reality is as valid as what you claim to be reality" have no veracity in science. Lindzen & Choi are as wrong as Specer & Braswell, and equally without value.

      There is no debate.

      report
    75. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      David, in the soft sciences like climate science, to refute [which only means to rebut] is not the end of the discussion at all, otherwise you warmers would be all in gaol.

      Sadly, as you endlessly demonstrate, there are many avenues out of the rebuttal.

      And when you can't find one of those you form a consensus.

      report
    76. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Climate science is a specialisation of geophysics. That makes it a "hard" science. If you think climate science is a 'soft' science in which the opinions of ignoramuses are as valued as observational evidence, you're wrong. Perhaps this is your problem.

      Climate consensus isn't an issue for free choice (democratic voting), it's compelled by the evidence. It's not that there are many avenues out of the rebuttal; you've rebutted nothing, whereas I've referred you to evidence which falsifies every single one of your claims.

      report
    77. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Please be advised, Mr Inglis, that I've been misusing the term "rebuttal".

      I now realise that the work of Lindzen & Choi has been refuted, as has that of Spencer & Braswell. I apologise for my misuse of the term "rebuttal", and stand corrected on that point.

      report
    78. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim,
      I don't have time to read every conspiracy fantasy developed by deniers. The reference you give says the case against NIWA was dismissed. I doesn't even describe what the case was about just a litany of complaints by the author because the case was dismissed.
      Given that NZ is a tiny fraction of the globe I have no doubt that the claims of the author would have no impact on the evidence for global warming.
      There is no evidence of fraud just vexatious litigation.

      report
    79. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      I love your ad authoritarium arguments David.

      So convincing....and scientific.

      report
    80. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Rennie

      Go on, David, read it.

      You'll be amazed to learn how zero-evidence-based your favourite warming theories are.

      report
    81. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      That's OK David.

      What's a few more errors here or there?

      report
    82. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim,
      quite the reverse! What Phil Jones was concerned with was attempts by deniers to have unscientific papers published in denier journals and 'peer reviewed' by other deniers. Peer review is designed to confirm that papers follow accepted methodology and consider relevant science.
      Less reputable journals were known to be accepting articles that did not undergo adequate review in an attempt to generate false claims of disagreement amongst the scientists to confuse laymen like yourself.

      report
    83. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "I love your ad authoritarium arguments David.

      So convincing....and scientific." ie correct.

      If there's a "soft science" issue here, it's around the psychology leading to the moral cowardice of those who seem unable to accept reality.

      report
    84. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Rennie

      David, just quote Phil Jones' exact words and then see if you can say that again with a straight face.

      You are the greatest hypocrite. Trying to get as many "denier" accusations in the one sentence as possible while being a very obvious one yourself.

      You sound like you're trying for a job at UEA as the No.1 climate gatekeeper.

      But in case you can't find that email, try this:

      "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"-- Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit

      Phil would probably give you a job.

      You've already done a great job of, as he puts it, "redefining what the peer-review literature is".

      report
    85. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      David, I'm afraid you haven't got any idea.

      Any science that admits it can't work out whether one vital aspect of that science [ie clouds] is positive or negative is not just soft, it's woolly!

      And you warmers who deny many other known and unknown unknowns are so far from knowing future climate sensitivities, that you don't even accept the old science standard that the easiest person to fool is yourself.

      "Reality" to you is a GCM or an adjusted thermometer.

      Try looking out the window for a change.

      report
    86. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      David, here's the only bit of climate science that is at all "hard". Not that you'd know from the MSM glossing over the facts in this Antarctic fiasco.

      WHEN IS THE CON GONNA DO AN ARTICLE ON THIS SHOCKING PARODY THAT IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TAXPAYER'S MONEY?

      HELLOOO!!! ANYONE HOME??

      * This is the largest and most expensive Antarctic expedition ever mounted by Australia.
      * It is being funded almost entirely by the Australian Taxpayer, as is the rescue operation.
      * It’s not about “tourists”. There is the ship’s crew, the BBC documentary crew, the Guardian Reporters, a bunch of mad climate scientists, and a whole heap of teachers and PhD students who actually paid for passage so they could be unpaid “research assistants” to the mad scientists.
      * By the time this little “Climate Change PR fiasco” is over, the cost to the Australian Taxpayers will run into several millions of dollars.

      report
    87. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim,
      and I love your pseudo Latin criticisms. You are confusing an argument from authority with an argument from expertise, something common with disciples of JoNova.
      An argument from authority occurs when someone claims to know something because they used to hold a position. eg I used to work for the government's climate change unit or I used to be a science presenter.
      When someone has scientific expertise, such as working for NASA or Hadley they are arguing from expertise not authority. Which in logic is a much sounder position.

      report
    88. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Rennie

      "When someone has scientific expertise, such as working for NASA or Hadley they are arguing from expertise not authority."

      Ah, David, you must be referring to some august personage like Phil Jones again and his "expertise" in manipulating "peer review".

      I'll give you a tip David; if the argument's not backed by evidence, it's a load of old shoes.

      report
    89. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      I'll give you a tip Jim; if the argument's not backed by evidence, it's a load of old shoes.

      I've been clarifying your misunderstandings of evidence in these pages for some months now.

      report
    90. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim,
      rules, regulations and definitions generally only get refined when people try and cheat the system. Phil Jones was identifying a problem where Deniers are attempting to gain respectability by fabricating evidence and using pseudo review processes. There is no significant body of scientific evidence supporting the deniers position. There is a massive body of evidence, accepted by the IPCC and every major scientific institution for AGW.
      You may accept the conspiracy theories of the contrarians, but you should be aware that you are as out of touch with reality as those who believe aliens live at the North Pole.

      report
    91. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "Any science that admits it can't work out whether one vital aspect of that science [ie clouds] is positive or negative is not just soft, it's woolly!" Err, no, it's simply science in progress - in comparison with the received wisdom passed down from on high from Jo Nova's (well-renumerated? I hear it's not just the Koch Brothers who are funding that gravy train) website.

      Meanwhile, here's what Googling clouds climate at site:sciencedaily.com turns up (page 1 of 6660 hits)

      Climate change…

      Read more
    92. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      Well, you've parroting them anyway.

      report
    93. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      David, with all your woulds, coulds, shoulds and maybes listed above you demonstrate perfectly just what a woolly science it is.

      You not only show this and know this, you actually deny this.

      Your cred is severely lacking.

      report
    94. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Rennie

      Try to live in the real world David.

      I'm the one whose being sceptical, remember?

      report
    95. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Mr Inglis, science remains work in progress, ever developing, ever expanding, ever learning stuff. The subject matter of climate science is described mathematically by highly coupled non-linear equations, not always readily amenable to approximation.

      That's what allows the wriggle-room for Denialists to lie and deceive fools who accept their comforting blandishments. All I can say is, unless you are on the payroll of the Heartland Institute or one of their minions, then you are their dupe…

      Read more
    96. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      Poor old deluded DA. The GAT hasn't warmed for 17+ years, the oceans haven't warmed since we got a reasonable measuring device in the last decade and all he's got for comfort is a bunch of GCMs, 96.7% of which are wrong.

      "There's no need for me to wish you a miserable New Year, because I'm confident that's what your inability to accept that you are suicidally wrong on this issue will ensure the same."

      But he assures me he is a sceptical optimist.

      And if a miserable New Year is what you're confident and convinced of then I suppose having a happy one would only ruin it for you.

      But then if a miserable one for you is simply current climate conditions then I'm sure you'll get your wish.

      report
    97. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Could it be, Mr self-styled sceptical Inglis, that far from true scepticism, you are instead a non-cognisant lickspittle of some of the nastier elements in the petrochemical world?

      produce evidence? Robert J. Brulle, "Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations", Climatic Change DOI 10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7, http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx

      Drexel U media…

      Read more
    98. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Global Average Temperatures haven't increased in 17 years?

      National Climate Data Center global average anomalies for the 17 years to 2012 (so far, 2013 is on track to be hotter than 2012).
      1996 +0.32 deg C
      1997 +0.51 deg C
      1998 +0.63 deg C
      ...
      2005 +0.65 deg C
      ...
      2010 +0.66 deg C
      2011 +0.53 deg C
      2012 +0.57deg C

      No warming in 17 years, Mr Inglis? 17 years ago was 1996; every year since then has been warmer than 1996, and 2010 is the warmest of all.

      Considering the amount of ice that's melted in that 17 years, this is remarkable. Perhaps you'll be at a New Year's Eve gathering at which there'll be drinks kept cold in an ice bath? If you stay at the gathering long enough, perhaps the ice will all melt - at which time the drinks start getting warmer, quickly.

      report
    99. Ben Marshall
      Ben Marshall is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Writer

      In reply to David Arthur

      David, enough. Stop feeding the troll.

      No amount of information, facts, peer-reviewed papers or sheer physical weight of all the climate scientists sitting on Mr Inglis's head will make him cease or desist believing with utter certainty that he is right and you are wrong. When you feed him data, he only gets fatter and happier - right now, at this point in the comments thread, his family need to shift him using a forklift, okay? So, please, stop.

      Remember, if you feed a troll, they'll come back again and again. If you stop feeding them, they'll eventually go back to the comments section of Jo Nova's site and fester there. Who knows, if we starve them out, one day The Conversation might host a lively conversation about good and better ways to mitigate climate change.

      Wishing you and yours all the best, now and into our warmer future.

      Ben

      report
    100. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      Yes DA, there's plenty of A [as in man made]GW out there if you want it.

      But try the road less manipulated.

      And I thought you said you were a sceptic.

      report
    101. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Ben Marshall

      Greetings Mr Marshall.

      My purpose in persisting in discussion with Mr Inglis has been to make sure that he knows that there is no basis in reality for his views. In this, I have succeeded.

      I wish all others a Happy New Year, during which his family may well Mr Inglis's family may choose to act in self-defence.

      report
    102. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      Apart from your introductory insults, DA, you just said that on the other site.

      A few insults left but run out of propaganda already, eh?

      report
    103. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      "In this, I have succeeded." [in deluding myself yet again]

      If you can believe in CAGW with no substantial evidence, you can believe anything.

      And BTW, as a POI even the BoM admit there's been no warming in the northern half of the continent for the last 30 years:

      http://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/acorn-tmin-nth-oz-82-12.jpg

      But NASA says it applies to the whole continent:

      http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenhunter_18-nov-04-19-00.jpg

      report
    104. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Thanks for the content-free comment, Mr Inglis. While I'm mildly amused your use of the term "propaganda" to describe peer-reviewed papers, I'm not sure there is anything of value to add to this topic.

      You might be interest in David Hodgkinson's "A 2014 calendar for climate change policy-making"( http://theconversation.com/a-2014-calendar-for-climate-change-policy-making-21381).

      I'm not given to insults, but in your case I see no reason to not strive for accuracy.

      report
    105. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to Ben Marshall

      Ben, I hope you looked at that Jo Nova link I gave you just so you could see how the rest of the world regards this "woolly" science and the people involved.

      I know that when you're in denial you don't want the truth but it does help you to cope with the real world.

      I can't wait to see the Con's take on this [if they ever do one that is] but here's another [even more embarrassing] view of it:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/30/the-antarctic-research-fiasco-would-you-could-you-in-a-boat/

      What should the Con do about this? Ignore it and maybe it'll go away or be honest and tackle it head on?

      report
    106. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      " even the BoM admit there's been no warming in the northern half of the continent for the last 30 years" Well of course, what do you expect? When you put a big retardation on heat dissipation to space (which started ~30 years ago, as atmospheric CO2 approached 350 ppm) first thing it will do is start getting transferred to available sinks ie high latitudes.

      You see, Mr Inglis, global warming doesn't mean the whole world gets uniformly warmer; it means the temperature difference between low and high latitudes decreases - Arctic first, since Antarctic is better isolated with Circumpolar Current.

      Regarding no warming over Australia for 30 years, your Mr Goddard man hasn't quite got it correct; gfet it here, straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20130103.shtml

      So there's an explanation for a bleedingly obvious statement, and a refutation for you.

      report
    107. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      "I'm not given to insults, but in your case I see no reason to not strive for accuracy."

      Don't feel bad, DA.

      You've been playing the man all along anyway and now when you've run out of anything worthwhile to say and even the propaganda is running low, why not?

      report
    108. Jim Inglis

      retired

      In reply to David Arthur

      "global warming doesn't mean the whole world gets uniformly warmer; it means the temperature difference between low and high latitudes decreases"

      It means a lot more things than ever dreamt of in our philosophy, DA, and the sooner you realise that the happier, wiser, more optimistic and sceptical you'll become and in the meantime try to run a no-regrets, carbon negative footprint like I do and things might even improve.

      Happy New Year!

      report
    109. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      "Sceptical" Thanlks Mr Inglis, I was just reflecting on that.

      I refuted your assertion about Australia not warming in 30 years by simple reference to a BoM Climate Statement, which conveniently featured a graph of annual temperature variation with the title "Annual and Decadal Mean Temperature Anomalies for Australia" in large, friendly letters, although perhaps not as friendly as the font used for "Don't Panic" on the cover of "The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy" ... but I digress.

      My point is that in support of a fallacious assertion that Australia hasn't warmed in 30 yours, you proffer a picture of unknown provenance that purportedly shows monthly temperature anomalies.

      After thus showing that you're willing to believe as many as 6 impossible things before breakfast, you then suggest that I'm not sufficiently sceptical. Yeah, right.

      report
    110. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim,
      Here's a quick summary of Phil Jones' qualifications, experience and expertise:
      "Jones obtained a B.A. in Environmental Sciences (1973) from the University of Lancaster, an M.Sc. in Engineering Hydrology (1974) and a Ph.D. in Hydrology (1977) from the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. His doctoral thesis was titled, A spatially distributed catchment model for flood forecasting and river regulation with particular reference to the River Tyne."
      "Jones…

      Read more
    111. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Jim Inglis

      Jim,
      you are not being sceptical you are in denial.
      If you were sceptical you would look at the arguments you put up with the same rigour as the ones you reject.
      In reality you have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not understand the basics of scientific investigation or statistical analysis. You parrot arguments that would not be acceptable in an undergraduate essay and challenge scientists who have been working in the field for 40 years.

      report
  5. Peter Redshaw

    Retired

    Thanks Jane for the wrap up and the links to stories that I missed through the year. The link to the article on the decreasing and changing nature of peak demand with it's informative graphs. It puts the myth to bed that renewables are not important, especially solar, in reducing peak demand.

    This is where the real effort should be placed on the most efficient integration or renewables into the grid to manage peak demand and therefore the cost of electricity. And to do that means a digitizing of our grid network from supplier to customer and customer to supplier.

    report
  6. Gopalan Srinivasan

    logged in via Facebook

    Wel, the wrap-by Jane is superb in drawing contrasts on the core issues of energy and environment, both of which are the bedrock for development. Coming as I am from an emerging economy, the debate on ecological security in the face of no tangible reduction in poverty because of perverse policies or lack of sound policies over the years appears whimsical. No doubt, whistle-blowers elsewhere bemoan the lack of attention to sustainable development but as nations the world over remain wedded to growth…

    Read more
  7. Comment removed by moderator.

    1. Jenny Goldie

      population and climate activist

      In reply to Michael Lardelli

      There certainly needs to be more comment on population and it would have been good to have had Michael Lardelli's article published on this forum. Overpopulation and overconsumption drive all the planet's ills and must be addressed, rather than just the symptoms e.g. climate change.

      report
    2. Mike Stasse

      Retired Energy Consultant

      In reply to Michael Lardelli

      What a shame......... there are nowhere near enough pieces on population, THE elephant in the room. I've read loads of pieces from Mr Lardelli, and they've all made sense to me.

      If ever there was one issue that needs discussing as the collapse of civilisation looms large, it's this one...

      report
    3. john tons

      retired redundant

      In reply to Michael Lardelli

      Is this a case of some self censorship? I have found Michael's articles on a range of issues thought provoking and well researched and population is an issue that needs to be discussed.

      report
    4. Malcolm King

      Director at Republic

      In reply to Michael Lardelli

      Classic example of how NOT to get published:

      1. Write outside your subject area - Lardelli is a geneticist.
      2. Write a political article and say it's 'academic'
      3. Post a private conversation as on open email exchange
      4. Call in to question the editor's judgment
      5. CC a third party in to the exchange
      6. Fact error 1. Betts is a sociologist, not a demographer

      The article has already been published online on another website destroying ownership by The Conversation.

      report
    5. Jenny Goldie

      population and climate activist

      In reply to Malcolm King

      Malcolm

      You may be right about not getting published but you're avoiding the issue. The issue is that there needs to be more public debate on population. But with you around it's very difficult to have a rational, dispassionate debate on population without being called a xenophobe, racist or eugenicist.You really need to dissociate yourself, Malcolm, from your friends who benefit from high population growth levels and have concern for those suffering the downside in higher house prices, congestion, longer waiting times and general loss of amenity.

      report
    6. Michael Lardelli

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Malcolm King

      Well Malcolm, at least Betts has published articles on demography in scientific journals, unlike you. You have recently been passing yourself off in the Adelaide Advertiser and elsewhere as a "corporate demographer" (whatever that is) but you have no scientific track record in demography at all. By the way Malcolm, I hope you have read the article I wrote about your Nazi-baiting of population activists:

      http://www.stoppopulationgrowthnow.com/Who_are_the_true_fascists.pdf

      For those who are interested, a version of the article I tried to publish at The Conversation is available in a recent Sustainable Population Australia newsletter:

      http://www.population.org.au/sites/default/files/newsletters/nl201312_113.pdf

      report
  8. Colin Samundsett

    retired BSurv

    Michael Lardelli - you protest too much: neither would Bishop Ussher have accepted your scholarship as pertinent for publication in this field. The mills of God grind slowly, and the passing of 360 years is but a blip in time.

    report
  9. George Carrard

    retired scientist, performing musician

    I take issue with “If we want to keep below 2C of global warming ...” and “Australia's fair share of emissions cuts if the world is to stay under 2C ...”. James Hansen has said for a long time that 2°C is a recipe for disaster and he has backed this up with ice-core measurements. The acceptance by scientists of 2ºC is most unfortunate and smells like a compromise between truth and politics. Of course Nature does not compromise. We need to aim for much less than 2ºC.

    report