Hi Colin,

First a big thanks for doing your bit to get the message out.

I challenge you to read ALL the comments on:
http://theconversation.edu.au/global-drought-has-not-increased-but-climate-change-is-still-a-threat-10751
http://theconversation.edu.au/rainfall-clues-link-climate-change-to-maya-collapse-10624
http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-deniers-are-rarer-than-we-think-10670
https://theconversation.edu.au/a-storm-of-stupidity-sandy-evidence-and-climate-change-10492
https://theconversation.edu.au/after-the-deluge-what-hope-the-politics-of-climate-response-10318 and
https://theconversation.edu.au/hurricane-sandy-mixes-super-storm-conditions-with-climate-change-10388
and to tell me that you think that these are all valuable contributions.

Rather than "shaping scientific, cultural and intellectual agendas by providing a trusted platform that values and promotes new thinking and evidence-based research" The Conversation has become a platform for those who deny the science.

John Coochey is already here, and I suspect that the comments for your article are likely to turn into yet more repetitive and boring denier vs science.

Reddit has a system where the readers can vote comments up or down, and comments with a total of -4 or less are hidden. If The Conversation implemented a similar system then those who support the science could just down vote deniers instead of wasting every bodies time responding to them.

For me it is obvious that the current system on The Conversation does not work. I want to show that the Reddit system of reader voting works, with the hope that things change here.

If The Conversation wants to have post by John Coochey as the first post (which is the case just now) then as far as I'm concerned the comments section here is a waste of time.

I have read all the comments of the articles I listed above. My brain hurts from the repetitiveness and waste of time and energy involved. I'm no longer willing to waste my time reading any more of the same.

Note that posting a link to your article on Reddit will attract some new readers who would not otherwise know about the article. So I've done some good :)

At 8:30 pm on Friday night, the first three posts displayed are by deniers.

Is this a place for rational debate or a promoter of non-science?

Michael,
I see you are all over The Conversation at the moment. Are you on a mission or do you really have something to contribute? Whilst personally I might not agree with everything said here I certainly wouldn't like to see it shut down - as you seem to be suggesting. Just a thought.

You seem to believe ALL the science is settled. If you were in touch with the literature you would understand it certainly isn't. And I am not a "denier" - although some are all to eager to ascribe such labels.

Michael,
I see you are all over The Conversation at the moment. Are you on a mission or do you really have something to contribute? Whilst personally I might not agree with everything said here I certainly wouldn't like to see it shut down - as you seem to be suggesting. Just a thought.

You seem to believe ALL the science is settled. If you were in touch with the literature you would understand it certainly isn't. And I am not a "denier" - although some are all to eager to ascribe such labels.

@Peter Sommerville:

If you think that the conversations to all the above articles are informative and valuable, then we must agree to disagree.

I don't want these conversations shut down.

But when Gerard Dean yet again raises the issue of "the earth has not warmed since 1998" I believe there should be a way to vote him down so that that comments that most readers think are disruptive become hidden.

Note that I want the majority of readers to decide - I'm only one vote. This voting system works well on Reddit, and I believe that it would work well here.

Of course if The Conversation want this to remain a platform for John Coochey, Gerard Dean, and their ilk to promote their non-science, then this isn't a place for me (and I'll go away).

Don't go away Michael Wilbur-Ham. I really do enjoy your zealotry and your fixation with the word "denier" and its derivatives. You would be sorely missed.

What a joke. Next you'll be wanting to burn at the stake those who don't swallow your religious beliefs.

Below is an example of the sort of rubbish the gullibles like yourself swallow and propogate.

The thirteen part <"Clearing up the climate debate</" written by Australia’s top climate scientists, demonstrates they are up to their necks in activism.

‘Part One’ provides links to the thirteen Parts (scroll to the end of the article). And a list of the signatories that endorsed this compendium. It’s a list of who’s who of Australia’s top climate scientists.
https://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808

It is clear from the contributions written by these top climate scientists they are activists and extremists.

I went first to ‘Part Four’ (written by Mike Sandiford) to try to find out what they say about the consequences of AGW. Why are the scientists saying it is catastrophic?
https://theconversation.edu.au/our-effect-on-the-earth-is-real-how-were-geo-engineering-the-planet-1544
It’s about the evilness of humans, the damage plastic bags are doing and the like.

Nowhere in the thirteen Parts, written by Australia’s top climate scientists, could I find any persuasive case for dangerous or catastrophic climate change.

Don’t miss ‘Part 13’ the wrap up by a well known climate activist!
https://theconversation.edu.au/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558

Peter Lang

"It is clear from the contributions written by these top climate scientists they are activists and extremists"

Yes and no Peter. Are they 'activists'? Yes. When you see a clear and serious threat that endangers people, one has a responsibility to act on it. To become active.

Are they 'extremist'? Of course not. Responding to danger is never extreme.

Now consider someone such as yourself Peter, who advocates doing nothing in the face of danger, who even seeks to mislead people into thinking the danger does not exist. What labels wouldbest apply to yourself?

'Inactivist' certainly. And also 'extremist'. Someone who advocates doing nothing in the face of danger most definitely merits a label such as extremist. Many 'stronger'labels might be applied as well.

Think hard about this Peter. Don't you see how that tiny minority of angry noisy deniers of which you are a part are actually the extemists?

To be honest,that you can come to any forum such as this and argue so strenuously for a total dereliction of our duty of care to our fellow human beings beggars belief.

British Columbia has introduced a fossil fuel consumption tax, they've made it revenue-neutral by cutting other taxes, and they'll be increasing its rate year-on-year until British Columbians have made the transition to non-fossil fuels.

They don't need a bank-enriching derivative trading scheme: Kyoto was never anything but the bankers' greatest conjob.

The next IPCC WG1 Assessment, due in late 2013, will give Obama the ammunition he needs to do likewise. Our own dear Ruddites, diplomats one and all, are as clueless as the EU itself about the optimal methods to price fossil fuel out of use, and will stick with helping bankers get rich.

Colin Hunt,

Don't you realise that any so called market that is set up by politicians and bureaucrats will always be subject to 'adjustments' and 'fine tuning' by politicians to suit their re-election campaigns?

Gday Mr Dean, who wonders if he's dreaming, or whether it is accepted that the world has not warmed since 1998.

You must be dreaming, Mr Dean, because the world has most certainly warmed since 1998. Air temperatures in 2010, despite being the start of a La Nina, were warmer than those of El Nino-afflicted 1998, and that's just the air temperatures; oceans have warmed (5000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, if I remember rightly).

In fact, the rate of atmospheric heating may slow for the next century or so as oceans take up a greater proportion of the retained heat, and transfer them to polar ice masses.

Still, Glen Iris is between 14 and 88 m above sea level, so it won't be an issue for you, at least not in your life-time.

No Gerard. It is an absolutely accepted fact that the Earth is warming as fast as ever. around 3-4 Hiroshima bombs worth of energy being added every second. Or for a local Australian perspective, the energy equivalent ofboiling Sydney Harbour dry every 6-8 hours.

Don't believe me, go look at the data here http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Its figure 2 you need to be looking at.

And since there is no energy source here on Earth large enough tobe supplying that extra heat, it must be originating from something changing the Earth's external energy balance. Since the Sun has been cooling slightly over the last 1/2 century that can't be the source of the extra heat. That only leaves something increasingly blocking the escape of energy to space.

Now I wonder what that could be?

Gday Kim, you advise that as at 2009, Nicholas Stern was still advising a safer world via 450 ppm atmospheric CO2.

In 1996 when the "policy-makers" (economists and politicians, generally non-cogniscent regarding science) decided to limit warming to 2 deg C, this was code for atmospheric CO2 to not exceed 550 ppm; that is, climate sensitivity (the temperature rise due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2) was thought to be around 2 deg C.

By early this decade, further work showed that climate sensitivity is closer to 3 deg C than 2, so the upper limit of atmospheric CO2 was decreased to 450 ppm.

What the economists and politicians haven't yet caught up with is that 2 deg C average temperature increase will also cause substantial ice melting, causing considerable further warming, plus several metres of sea level rise.

It will also cause substantial Arctic Ocean warming (methane clathrate sublimation) and permafrost (tundra) thawing, also causing substantial methane emissions.

In other words, there is no way that 2 deg C warming over the next century or two will not cause substantial additional warming on top of that 2 deg C.

A prudent approach would be to cease fossil fuel use as quickly as our economies can manage, not by setting centrally-planned targets, but by following British Columbia's simple lead with a revenue-neutral fossil fuel consumption tax, the rate of which is increased until fossil fuel use is priced out of the economy, and everyone has used their offsetting tax savings by investing in alternative technologies.

David Arthur ~

If there was a step by step orderly march back to a safe climate as you suggest, like moving the pieces around the Monopoly board, that would be great and should have happened to preserve a stable economy.

Our reality, however, is that we have totally failed to keep a safe Earth and now increase this failure by not facing up to where the laws of physics are now about to take us, or identifying a plan that will match the size of the catastrophe that is now becoming apparent.

We could look at this game we play on the Earth and wonder what different moves we could have made that would have put us in a winning position now.

When we can see where we could be, then we may begin to see what we need to do now.

If we continue to play the game in the same way that got us into the current situation, we cannot expect some lucky roll of the dice that will get us out of jail free.

We may seek to play an orderly game, but our reality is more like a chaotic carbon swamp in the centre of the board, where a few enjoy luxury in high towers, but many must struggle in the sludge below.

When we look at our whole society, we can see some pretty basic failures, including an increase in homelessness, up 8% under a Labor Government, despite $1.1 billion having been thrown at the problem ~
http://www.smh.com.au/national/more-homeless-despite-1-billion-funding-20121112-297q7.html

620,000 young Australians 18 to 24 who have not been inspired to participate in work, education or training, despite tough laws enacted to force this to happen ~
http://www.smh.com.au/national/more-homeless-despite-1-billion-funding-20121112-297q7.html

and now Tim Flannery tells us that our threatened species legislation doesn't work, as we are about to enter the next massive wave of wildlife extinction ~
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/unmourned-death-of-a-sole-survivor-20121116-29hbg.html

Now we read that the "need to battle climate change is running up against strong global demand for coal" ~
http://www.smh.com.au/business/juggling-with-the-carbon-conundrum-20121116-29hf6.html

How can we begin to tackle the carbon crisis, when the driver of the problem is increasing in popularity.

When a wealthy society like Australia can totally fail on so many fronts, what hope do we have in tackling climate change?

If we would like to win this game we play on the Earth, then we are going to need a radically different approach to our problems, one that takes into account the whole social, science, historical and geopolitical dynamics.

Clearly we are off the track that will lead us to a winning position and if we keep throwing the dice in the current direction, we may find that there is no place left to play, as we also become a threatened species.

Perhaps we should apply Flannery's words in his article to us, where he writes, "The first duty of the bureaucrat these days seems to be to protect their minister from criticism. Thus it often seems preferable to let a species die out quietly, seemingly a victim of natural change, than to institute a recovery program that carries a risk of failure, however small."

We cannot expect anyone to save us, if we are not willing to figure out how we are going to save ourselves with a radical new direction and one that actually includes survival.

We need to start thinking in terms of success, as if our lives depended on it, if we would like to win this game of life.

Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/

Gday Kim Peart - I'm not proposing a "step by step orderly march back to a safe climate".

Having recognised that cap-and-trade schemes are eminently suitable for enriching investment bankers and their ma-ates, rather than being suitable for eliminating fossil fuel use, I'm simply proposing an optimal mechanism for weaning our economies off fossil fuel use as rapidly as possible.

Here are a few 'The Conversation' pages on which I've discussed these ideas.
http://theconversation.edu.au/choose-your-australian-vision-an-independent-economic-leader-or-a-hole-in-the-ground-7175
http://theconversation.edu.au/rich-nations-should-do-more-on-climate-say-chinese-8417
http://theconversation.edu.au/start-a-carbon-tax-thats-so-1991-clean-innovation-and-partnerships-is-where-its-at-8009
http://theconversation.edu.au/australia-under-a-carbon-price-plan-q-a-with-ross-garnaut-8010
http://theconversation.edu.au/subsidies-are-standing-in-the-way-of-corporate-tax-reform-8803

I agree that the world is replete with problems. I'm simply putting forward a way forward for one of those problems; that this way forward necessarily involves dismantling several of the larger corporate obstacles to a more sustainable future is a happy, not wholly unintended, consequence.

David Arthur ~

There is a problem.

A transition from the imperfect to the perfect society is not happening and it has not been happening for a very long time.

The result is our total failure to keep a safe Earth and now we run the risk of denying a future to our children.

Our failure to keep a safe Earth connects with all other failures of modern society and by looking across the whole society, it is possible to see the patterns that lead to failure.

Once these patterns are identified, it is then possible to propose a vision that will get us out of total failure and open the way to the delivery of a safe Earth for future generations.

Rather than questioning our current society, I suggest that it is only half there.

When the missing half is built, then we will have a whole and healthy society, along with a safe Earth.

We must firstly acknowledge the power of expansion in Nature, which is the most primal force since the beginning of time.

Secondly, we must acknowledge the beauty of Nature, expressed as cooperative diversity.

Our current society has a momentum for expansion and that works, but this expansion needs to be lifted into space, where there is unlimited energy from the Sun and space to expand across the Solar System and among the stars.

Rather than seeing our society as alien to Nature, I wonder if our industrial expansion is an expression of Nature, as this is the only way that Nature could expand life beyond Earth and among the stars.

Our society was in a position to begin this expansion when we stepped onto the Moon, but we fell back to Earth, burnt all that fossil fuel and now we have put our survival at risk.

When we saw the images of the Earth rising from the Moon in 1968, a new environmental vigour was born for a safe Earth, but this vigour made a fatal error of judgement, by totally focusing on the Earth.

If the law of expansion had been properly appreciated, we would have reached to the Sun for energy and built solar power stations in space, instead of getting sucked into the burning of so much fossil fuel.

The ferocity of competition has delivered an amazing society, but Nature lives by more than competition alone.

In Nature we observe expansion to maturity, where a system settles down and renews itself each spring.

In human society we can balance the excitement of competition with the joy of cooperation, to build a truly mature society, which can grow and also be mature.

If I am right and Nature is driving expansion, then human society is trapped in a perpetual growth cycle on Earth.

This is why our society has become a cancer on the Earth, causing the Nature to begin to die through our growth demands.

It will be by extending our society beyond Earth that we will heal the Earth, which aught to have been happening from the 1970s.

As it was then, so it is now, if we wish to shift the nightmare that we are creating through our inaction on expansion at a critical stage in human evolution.

In natural terms, the Earth was ripe for birth, but our dallying in the womb has caused a delayed birth and now we run the risk of stillbirth.

The Earth needs to be rushed to emergency surgery and the way opened from the womb, by building solar power stations in space.

We need to begin designing a stellar economy without poverty.

Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/

Colin, thanks but do you have anoither link to the Rogelj research? The link in the article led to a blank page on Nature when I clicked it.

To be fair - there are a number of estimates and no one can say for sure they know. I've also seen recent papers with lower projections and such forecasting is notoriously difficult.

I suggest the real point is that the risk of dangerously high warming is quite significant - even if the the stats were the other way around from Rogelj research is it in any way sane to take such a risk with the habitability of our planet that our civilisation so depends on? The disruptive effects of 3.6 degrees would be unimaginable to most people

Thanks Colin - I understand. But the link in the article appears to be broken. It doesn't even go to a reference to the article on Nature with an abstract (which is the norm). It just goes to blank page at nature saying the article doesn't exist :(

Ah - belay that Colin. Found it. Will post separately

That's a really interesting comment Gerard and explains a lot to me. I've always thought it important to separate the science of this issue with the economics of it. ie. It is *possible* to accept the science of AGW but not want to do anything about it, or not believe it to be harmful.

You have gone one step further and introduced ethics. ie. If I believe the science I will be a bad man. You therefore choose to deny the accepted science for your own integrity. Interesting.

Unfortunately science doesn't care what you think. It doesn't care what I think, it doesn't care (as you seem to be implying) whether or not MWH is a hypocrite. the planet and its climate will still obey the laws of physics.

Oh my goodness. You're still on about the people flying and being hypocrites. Airline travel contributes less than 2% of global emissions. Why not concentrate on something that if reduced would make a difference. The burning of coal, natural gas and oil for electricity and heat is the largest single source of global greenhouse gas emissions. 26%. You would be far better off lecturing people to wear jumpers instead of turning up the heat and opening windows instead of using air conditioning.
But no, keep on about flying and try to make people feel guilty. It won't work though because people realise that you are only trying to be clever in your denial. It's not clever though.

Andrew Vincent ~

There is another way to look at the flying dilemma.

I see a problem that could have been avoided entirely, if we had reached to the Sun for energy in the 1970s and build solar power stations in space, which was then possible.

We could have investing our planet's fossil fuel reserve into making the transition from an Earth-trapped carbon economy to a space liberated stellar civilization.

If we had reached to the Sun, we would have gained direct access to the unlimited energy-well of our star, which has an energy source so fast, it will burn brightly over the next 5 billion years, until expanding to the orbit of the Earth as a red giant.

Global warming is a stellar reality of Earth's future, which at some point will snap from the current equilibrium, to a permanently hotter environment.

This is because the Sun is now 25% hotter than at the dawn of life 3.5 billion years ago and our planet's life-support systems have been compensating for the heat increase.

Our current pressure on the Earth system on a number of fronts, driving Earth changes, may bring on the hot snap millions of years prematurely.

We would have kept a safe Earth, by not burning all that fossil fuel and now much of our industry would be located in space, further reducing the pressure on Earth as we expanded our civilization across the Solar System and among the stars.

The future that could have been is not, but understanding this alternate path reveals the future we could create and may now need to invest in, if we wish to survive.

Survival will be a moot point, when the next monster rock arrives to kiss the Earth and we have no space presence to deter it.

The path to a safe Earth will not be through cutting the use of fossil fuel, but following the path that we should have pursued to build a robust presence beyond Earth.

With direct access to stellar energy in space, we will be in a position to extract excess carbon from the air and sea, even turning that carbon back into a useful resource for Earth and space industries.

In this mix we may need to turn to nuclear power to speed up carbon extraction from the biosphere, simply to win back a safe Earth, if we cannot bring sufficient stellar energy on-line in the time demanded.

To help keep the Earth cool, we may need to invest in mirrors in space ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0cLczpAXAc

In this way we will be able to extend the tenure of life on Earth by millions of years, until our star becomes too dangerous to be near.

In the long term, all humanity's energy needs on Earth could be met by ground-based solar power generation, in a slow-Earth future, where long-haul transport can be by airship and poverty will be sent into history by building a stellar economy where the excitement of competition is balanced by the compassion of cooperation in a mature society.

Therefore, worrying over flying is futile in the face of a nightmare carbon crisis that must be resolved through the use of fossil fuel in the stellar transition process.

I hope that helps.

Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/

Liam J ~

Only if we say YES to extinction and neglect the power that we each hold to achieve the impossible.

Kim Peart

Gerard Dean ~

The primary madness is our burning of so much fossil fuel since the 1970s, that we are driving Earth changes on a number of fronts that now put us at risk.

If we found a monster asteroid was on its way to kiss the Earth and had ten years to prepare, the world would unite as one to meet it with a robust presence in space.

Our secondary madness is to risk getting trapped on Earth, which may become permanent if environmental catastrophes drive us into economic depression and we lose the cutting edge on space technology.

In the cosmic survival department, there are a number of good reasons to look at building solar power stations in space, to open the way to industrial expansion beyond Earth and also allow us to be a sustainable presence on Earth.

Rather than seeing the problems associated with the construction of solar power stations in space (SPSP), consider the energy of the Sun, which is so vast, it will be increasing in radiation over the next 5 billion years, until expanding to the orbit of the Earth as a red giant.

Considering how much fossil fuel we have burnt since the 1970s and all that we have built on Earth, the only factor is our lack of will to act.

We took the cheap path of burning fossil fuel and now we face a very high price for our foolishness.

Once a decision were made to build SPSP, our current rocket technology would meet the first wave of need, though with scale, new systems could be developed, such as a space able airship ~
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025388/#.UKkC8o6Dp5g

or a mass-driver ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0cLczpAXAc

The United States is preparing to build the system and other nations have been investigating the option, including Japan, China and India ~
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/japan-eyes-solar-station-in-space-as-new-energy-source-20091109-i50b.html

Bringing power to Earth can be by microwave or laser beam.

I wonder if it may be possible to receive a beam at a high altitude floating platform and then drop a cable to the surface.

In time it may be possible to bring a cable all the way from space, which would overcome any concerns with a beam.

The main use for SBSP on Earth that I see, is to extract excess carbon from the air and sea and reprocess the carbon back into a useful resource.

Carbon extraction and reprocessing could happen in space, with good air returned to Earth and the carbon used in space industries.

Our team is about to investigate all aspects of these options in great detail, with a view to a plan that will help win back a safe Earth as swiftly as possible.

If a stellar energy solution cannot be brought into play swiftly enough, then we may need to use nuclear power to drive carbon down in the biosphere.

In the long term, especially with industry in space, we should be able to meet all Earth's energy needs with ground-based solar power generation.

A vision that offers hope and an exciting stellar future, may prove to be the key to a safe Earth, by inspiring hope in the hearts of people, that we will survive, win back a safe Earth and be able to survive the next giant asteroid.

Hopefully, we will avoid the third madness, of nuclear conflict breaking out as nations go crazy in the heat and catastrophes that are now being predicted.

Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/

"Then, how do we get the power down to earth????"

Rectantennas: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=rectantenna&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Obviously, Gerard Dean isn't much of an electrical engineer.

Doesn't stop him from pontificating on the subject or any other for that matter.

Sorry Colin but the link you provided is hidden behing a U of Q login and is not apparently publicly accessible. Once I knew exactly what to look for I found this which I think is correct.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n4/full/nclimate1385.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201204

The abstract matches word for word :)

We never could limit climate change I would say Mark, given the fluctuations that have been occurring for thousands and thousands of years. See this article by the 1998 co-Nobel laureate of physics for a nice discussion of geological time and climate change.
http://theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/

@ Matt - the climate change that is occuring now and that is projected to occue exceeds anything during the period of human civilisation. You claim not to be adenier yet to continue to post rubbish claims in denial of the sicence

What should be done? What should rational economists advocate?

The policies being advocated by the climate catastrophists/alarmists/scaremongers are based on ideology. Given this, is it any wonder that there is strident opposition?

Let’s focus is on what is relevant for informing rational policy development. My view, for what its worth, is as follows:

1. There are many parameters but just four key parameters in estimating the costs and benefits of man's CO2 emissions and of CO2 mitigation policies to reduce emissions:

a. Climate sensitivity (T2xCO2)
b. Damage function
c. Decarbonisation rate (the rate the world could decarbonise)
d. The probability that the proposed mitigation policies will provide the hoped for net benefits

2. The orthodoxy’s view of climate sensitivity (T2xCO2) is that the central estimate is about 3C. However, the uncertainty is huge. Furthermore, the uncertainty has changed little in over 20 years.

3. It is unlikely that the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates will be reduced quickly.

4. Since uncertainty in climate sensitivity is large and unlikely to be reduced by much in the foreseeable future, the research effort should be refocused on reducing the uncertainty in the ‘damage function’ and the ‘rate of decarbonisation’ function. Because, even if climate sensitivity is high, if the damage function is small, the net cost of global warming would be small. So we should not risk implementing policies that will do significant economic damage to the world for little or no benefit.

5. If the damage function turns out to be high (that is not what current information suggests), then global decarbonisation of energy will be important. Then the decarbonisation rate that could be achieved, realistically, is important.

6. Therefore, research should also be focused on the rate of decarbonisation that could be achieved and how to achieve it.

7. Real progress in that area is currently blocked by the very people who are the CAGW alarmists. They advocate impracticable, unrealistic policies like: world government, (and all that would be required to make it work: police, army, taxation, bureaucracy); carbon taxes and/or ETS, renewable energy and they oppose the least cost way to reduce global emissions: nuclear power. So no real progress is possible. Progress is prevented by ideological beliefs.

8. We need to apply robust decision analysis methods to inform policy, not just mandate policies based on hype and ideological agendas – especially policies that will do huge harm with virtually no evidence they will do any good (such as carbon pricing and renewable energy).

What should be done?

Let's think beyond the current political, ideological and public paranoia about nuclear power in the western democracies. Let's look beyond these current constraints and short time scales and think about what could be achieved if we really wanted to and/or really needed to.

First, we need to focus on what would need to be done to reduce global ACO2 emissions (assuming it is necessary), not just what can be done to reduce emissions in individual countries (like USA or Australia).

Second, I recognise the political, cultural and regulatory constraints on nuclear power that exist now, especially in the democratic countries. However, I believe the constraints can be changed/removed if necessary. The constraints are not physical constraints; they are caused largely by ignorance and ideology, not to rational considerations. So they can be removed.

Third, the time scale I am considering is the time required to replace coal and baseload gas with nuclear power across the world and for nuclear to be the choice for most new electricity generation across the world. Another way to put it is the time it could take until nuclear power is cheaper than coal and gas for electricity generation (for most places across the world).

I suspect nuclear could be cheaper than coal and gas within 20 years if people (USA especially) really want to make it happen.

What could be the incentive to make it happen?

Here’s one possibility: The US President explains to the people of the USA that if the world is going to cut ACO2 emissions rapidly over the next 50 years or so, we must choose between these two options:

1. global carbon pricing scheme, or

2. cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels that will be available and suitable for all peoples of the world (and all sizes of electricity grids).

Option 1 (global carbon tax or ETS) would mean:

• a world administration, a governing bureaucracy, a world police force to enforce the rules, a world army to make recalcitrant countries abide by the rules, and global taxation to pay for all this. It means handing over some control of sovereignty to world government.

• The carbon tax or ETS would have to apply to all emissions of all greenhouse gasses from all sources in all countries. The ‘honeymoon’ system, which applies to only the biggest emitters, that we are seeing advocated and started now in EU and Australia cannot last - for the reasons pointed out by Nordhaus (summarised here: http://skepticalscience.com//news.php?f=nordhaus-sets-the-record-straight-climate-mitigation-saves-money#82373

• The carbon tax and/or ETS will always be subject to manipulation for political reasons – as is being done in Europe and Australia

• A penalty scheme - like pricing carbon, or mandating emissions reductions by regulation – will reduce economic growth. That is, people will be poorer. Most people across the world will be poorer as a result of such policies than they would be without them.

Option 2 (cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels) would mean:

• No carbon tax or ETS and, therefore, no world government and all that entails

• Competition brings prices and costs down, improves the breed, improves safety etc. (Safety is a cost, just as it is for aircraft manufactures and all other industries)

• Appropriate, light regulation, with appropriate balance between cost and safety (as is applied to the passenger airline industry).

• Competition between designers and manufacturers in many countries brings prices down and improves the breed.

• As always, the most innovative and capable people will do best.

• This is an incentive approach as distinct from the penalty approach of carbon pricing and emissions limits.

• The world will be better off.

The comments are being posted out of order. Each new posts builds on the previous one. Suggest readers read them in the order they were posted.

there are good reasons to remove the impediments that are blocking us from having low cost nuclear power. Some of them are:

• Nuclear fuel is 20,000 to 2 million times more energy dense than coal. This offers huge potential advantages.

• Virtually unlimited energy supply for the world

• Easy to store and requires small area and volume to store years of a whole country’s energy needs – this provides much greater energy security than with fossil fuels

• 20,000 to 2 million times less mass to be shipped.

• Reduced fatalities per TWh of electricity provided

• Provides a reliable power supply. Can be load following if necessary.

• Each time man has moved to higher energy density fuels in the past, it has made possible huge improvements in human wellbeing. This is potential is probably the greatest advantage of nuclear power.

The US president could make this happen. He needs to be surrounded by the right people. He was not in his last term.

Given the stalemate between the proponents of ‘CO2 mitigation no matter what it costs’ and the economic rationalists, is there a way both could get what they want?

Given the many advantages of nuclear power over fossil fuels for electricity generation, the enormous benefit of low cost electricity for humanity across the world, and the factor of 20,000 to 2 million increase in energy density (and what has happened in the past when mankind has moved to higher energy density energy sources), I suggest the benefits of adopting nuclear could be enormous. But how can it be achieved (practicably)? Clearly, it is not happening now, or is happening only very slowly.

That is why I’ve been urging that the focus needs to be on:

• revamping the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completely for future generations of nuclear power plants

• changing NRC’s focus from ‘nuclear <i>rejection</i> commission’ to a ‘can-do’ nuclear regulatory agency – i.e. change the focus from being almost exclusively on safety to, instead, encouraging ever improving financial viability for the long term (which of course includes the necessary focus on safety just as it does for all other regulatory agencies)

• Of course, such changes in focus can only be made with the public’s support. Therefore, they can only be achieved with political leadership to get the US citizens to be increasingly supportive

• I suggested the US President is the best person in the world to lead this

• IMO, the practicalities are that the focus needs to be on making nuclear power cheap and suitable for all grids and all countries. That means the focus should be on small, modular, factory built and refuelled nuclear power plants, not the enormous Gen 3+ plants that USA, Europe and China are building. I suggest we need nuclear power plants that can be bought off the shelf in sizes roughly equivalent to gas turbines – e.g. 10 MWe to 300 MWe or larger.

We need as much competition as possible. Competition improves the technology and reduces costs. Wee need competition from companies in the manufacturing countries – USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Russia, China. Korea, Japan – building small modular nuclear power plants on production lines like aircraft. Small is essential for several reasons:

a. only small power plants can fit easily into most electricity grids around the world

b. small units can be ordered ‘just in time’, once demand is assured

c. small can be constructed and installed quickly, thus reducing investor risks

d. small can be built in factories, shipped to site, returned to factory for refuelling

e. small can be manufactured on production lines like aircraft, turned out rapidly and with good quality control

f. small leads to faster rate of improvement because more are manufactured and lessons learned are built into the next model more quickly.

g. More competition between more manufacturers leads to faster rate of improvement

Examples of small modular nuclear reactors here (see also the ones accessible from the left margin):http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/hyperion.html

Peter Lang ~

If it were only the heat.

There is also the detail that the oceans are 30% more acidic and set to increase ten-fold by 2050.

Evolution cannot keep pace with such a swift level of change, which will lead to so much extinction and probably the loss of the Great Barrier Reef, which is already half gone over the past three decades.

Together with growing dead zones, more acidic oceans presents a threat to all life on Earth, where algal blooms in dying seas can release toxic hydrogen sulphide gas that can kill life on land and wreck the ozone layer.

The oceans will stink, if you live long enough to get a whiff.

This is why losing the Arctic ice sheet and exposing the methane clathrate deposits to warmer waters is so dire, as methane is a super greenhouse gas that breaks down into carbon dioxide, which drives up ocean acidification further.

Kim Peart

Kim Peat,

Your comments are simply a statement of belief. To me they are meaningless.

1. The oceans are not acidic they are alkaline.

2. Loss of the Great Barrier Reef? It's cold that kills coral reefs. What was the Great Barrier reefs extent during the last ice age? How much does it grow as the temperatures warm? How is coral thriving in much hotter waters off New Guinea?

3. What will the carbon tax do for the Great Barrier Reef/ please tell me quantitatively what difference the carbon tax will make, not a whole pile of belief based dogma.

4. "The oceans will stink, if you live long enough to get a whiff." Give me a break. That is the sort of absolute tripe that is totally discrediting the alarmists' cause. Did the oceans 'stink' during much warmer times when life thrived on planet Earth? Life loves warmer and struggles when colder. Look how much better off we are now than the people of two centuries ago were when temperatures were 0.8C or so cooler than now. Another degree or two is probably more good than harm on balance.

Arctic ice retreat - so what? There has been no ice at either pole for 75% of the time that multicell life has thrived on the planet. Life thrives when warmer and struggles when colder.

So lets get realistic. let's get quantitative. The consequence most often used by alarmists for scaremongering is the threat of rising sea levels. However, the cost are inconsequential - about $1 trillion loss to global GDP cumulative to 2100 (for 1 m sea level rise) compared with $3,500 trillion cumulative GDP. That's about 0.03%
http://www.springerlink.com/content/851112j434t26502/fulltext.pdf

The economist author can fix the details and argue about the appropriate discount rates etc to use and post appropriately corrected figures if he wishes. I am interested in the big picture rahter than arguing over down in the weeds details. For me the big picture is that ACO2 is not catastrophic and the net costs and benefits are very poorly understood. Further more the rational polices to do the heavy early lifting is blocked by ideological beliefs by the people wh are the scare mongers. This is ridiculous.

Hello Peter, Climate change global warming policy devised by economists here are led by those that have a direct pecuniary interest in the idea, especially the tri-lateralists Garnaut and Hewson, who are merely toeing the tri-lateralist line to the cost of Australia.Nobel prize winners and other of the worlds most notable economists have shown that a trading scheme is one of the worst options to mitigate such risks, and that the time series of temperature is not deterministic and follows a stochastic path. A stochastic path is NOT forecastable more than a few years into the future. It is not the gig of most economists to comment on such a topic, except for the author who has a direct pecuniary interest in contradiction to the disclosure statement. Forecasting is my gig, so it may continue that I will be given the childish tag "denier" by the climate gestapo and other economic illiterates and innumerates on forums such as this.

Spiro Vlachos,

Very well said. This is the sort of comment that academic economists should be putting forward, not the trip being pedalled by the climate orthodoxy.

You said:
“Nobel prize winners and other of the worlds most notable economists have shown that a trading scheme is one of the worst options to mitigate such risks, …”

Yes. I wonder how many realise that Professor Richard Tol a long time advocate of carbon pricing recently said this in a comment on Judith Curry’s web site:

“International coordination of carbon taxation is impossible now, and unlikely to happen during the next few centuries”

http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/the-costs-of-tackling-or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-239101

Peter Lang ~

No worries Peter.

Should you decide that it is time for action to address the carbon crisis at an effective level, then our paths may cross.

The denial of science has a long history, often driven by politics and or religion, from the time of Galileo, of Darwin and even many who claim that the Moon landing was a hoax.

Of greater concern to me is scientific reticence, which hesitates to address the full implications of the carbon crisis, leaving the society with a false sense of security, that we can get out of the problem with a bit of tweaking.

Unfortunately, it may take a major catastrophe to motivate action and if that is the case, hopefully we will not have left survival level response too late.

Kim Peart

Kim Peart,

No worries, and sorry for the spelling your name incorrectly in the previous comment.

You said: "Should you decide that it is time for action to address the carbon crisis at an effective level, then our paths may cross."

So, apparently, you didn't read the other comments I posted this morning, did you?

Matt Stevens,

Interesting and enjoyable link. Thank you

Robert B Laughin is brilliant physicst - who has never studied climate science or published a single paper on the topic. Even Nobel Prize winners can say foolish things,

His analysis is flawed on many fronts. But in particularhis error in thinking here is to equate the continued existence of the Earth with the continued healthy existence of humanity. Yes, the planet has been through a lot, including some cataclysmic extinction events. That being said, compared to the Earth humanity is young and vulnerable. Civilization has only been around for 10,000 years or so, and during a period of unusual climatic calm.

That is the real issue. Recent climaate change has been very abrupt in geologic terms and like nothing we have seen since the rise of human civilisation. The rise of GHGs doesn't endanger the planet - it will be fine. People, on the other hand??

But you will will always get a few notable contrarians - most nobel laureates, and all national science bodies of credibility, and virtually all published science on the matter and those who have studied the matter - disagree with Laughlin

http://www.alphagalileo.org/AssetViewer.aspx?AssetId=10406
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/16/1203401/the-earth-is-warming-and-human-activity-is-the-primary-cause-the-climate-science-paradigm-grows-stronger/?mobile=nc
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

But of course - thoise who wish to deny AGW will choose to follow the odd man out and ignore the evidence and the scientific community

Mark Harrigan, I am not a denier, but i dislike poor science that links increasing temperatures to things that are not related or at the very most, distally related. This is the science that threatens the validity of climate change science. I am more concerned about good science Mark. I appreciate your informed links to sites that refute or argue against one proposition or another. Keep up the good argument Mark. The strength of science is that it can be disputed and tested, retested, new evidence, change hypothesis, retest etc.

Matt Stevens: "I am not a denier"

You would say that, wouldn't you?

Matt

This paragraph from Laughlin sums up what one should and shouldn't take away from his article:

"Nobody knows why these dramatic climate changes occurred in the ancient past. Ideas that commonly surface include perturbations to the earth’s orbit by other planets, disruptions of ocean currents, the rise and fall of greenhouse gases, heat reflection by snow, continental drift, comet impacts, Genesis floods, volcanoes, and slow changes in the irradiance of the sun. No scientifically solid support has been found for any of these suggestions. One thing we know for sure is that people weren’t involved. There weren’t enough people around during the ice episodes to matter, and there weren’t any people around before the ice episodes."

The rest of his piece is an interesting travelogue through time & space.

But in that paragraph he nails his colours to the wall. 'I may not know much about this stuff but I will CLAIM to have enough knowledge about all of these things to reject them all. And I will mix pseudo-science with real science in my list to confuse the issue'

"Genesis floods ... and slow changes in the irradiance of the sun". MumboJumbo and real science blurred together.

"...slow changes in the irradiance of the sun..."

Laughlin (a physicist) has just said that several entire branchs of physics (Stellar Physics, Nuclear Physics, The Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics, Radiative Heat Transfer to name a few) have got it all wrong. A big call. Presumably Laughlin has a background of published science in all of these fields to back up this assertion.

Or did he simply make the claim in a popular forum, a claim that would never have seen the light of day in the real scientific literature. If Laughlin had a basis for his opinions, surely he would have published this in the scientific literature. Did he?

Isn't this the point. If a scientist has views, evidence, arguments, maths that supports a contrary view, why don't they publish it in the scientific literature?

If they aren't willing to put their views up before their peers - the people who actually have the knowledge-base needed to assess what they are saying, why do they go out to more lay-audiences to make the same claim.

If Laughlin thinks he has the grounds to dismiss the Standard Solar Model, by all means, publish. In the scientific literature. But going into the mainstream press to just claim that it is all wrong is simply (to be polite) disingenuous.

Matt - you say you are not a denier - and "dislike poor science that links increasing temperatures to things that are not related or at the very most, distally related" - but you lead in with a post from an unqualified source that has not has conclusions subject to peer review and whose logic on the matter has been demonstrably shown to be false and denies established science all over the place.

Also, what "poor science" are you referring to?

For one thing - it is not about temperature - that is an outcome measure (one among many).

It is about increasing heat being retained by the planet due to inclreasing levels of GHG's - that increasing heat being stored and ciculated within the climate system (ocean, ice, atmosphere) to produce a climate systen with more energy.

With such a system retaining more energy we would expect to see ice mass disapperaing (it is) sea levels to rise due mainly to thermal expansion (it is) increasing extreme weather - especially moisture related (we do). Average temperature, on the other hand, will be subject to periods of a hiatus as natutral variation in the system moves the heat energy around on periods of several years (e.g. ENSO). Natural variation hasn't been vanquished by humans adding geosequestered carbon into the system in excess of the natural cycle to cope - just added to. That's why its the average temperature per decade that is more meaningful.

Our global models for prediciting the future if we continue to add GHGs have been very good on a global scale - rather poor on a regional scale but getting better.

The only meaningful uncertainties in the science that is focused on by those who actually know what they are talking about, and subject their fiding to proper peer review, is climate sensitivity - how warm, how fast. There are other uncertainties in the details but the overall picture is clear.

All the recent pointers suggest the risks of climate sensitivty being high are growing - and no credible study is able to rule out the probability of it being high.

All credible economic and other studies who fairly clearly that the cost in disruption, human misery and straight dollars of high warming are extremely high - and would make the GFC look like a walk in the park.

On that basis, and given that the decisions we make to impact this problem have long lead times - it is reasonable to call for urgent action

I have posted the links to these conclusions and the evidence for them numerous times. They can easily be found by anyone who is a genuinse sceptic.

Those who post regularly on these threads and cherry pick little details, ignoring the big picture, who assume from their armchairs they can refute the science and the evidence - and quote others who do the same but refuse to subject their contrary conclusions to proper peer review - are pseudo skepctics in denial of the science.

It is entirely appropriate to call such behaviour denail when it occurs - whether you, or they, or anyone else likes it or not ot takes offence or not.

I take deep offence at such behaviour that denies the evidence and am not afraid to say so.

Matt Stevens,
I enjoyed reading the very well presented article to which you had given us the link. It makes one feel so insignificant with a life time of at most 100 years when the earth can claim such a long and prestigious history. At 77 years of age, my previous lifetime seems like the blinking of an eye!!

While I expect to be shouted down as usual for even writing on this forum, I think it must be recognised that the only link between increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and large increases in temperature, is made through very selective modelling. The fact that the Greenland ice is melting and the Arctic has less ice than in recent times (of course within historic records, there are clear indications that the Arctic ice has been less than at present as recently as 1920 - the saga of the NW Passage is legendary!) this has nothing to say about the role of carbon dioxide and does not provide ANY indication as to WHY it may be melting beyond the obvious fact that in the Northern Hemisphere at least, the temperature is warmer than at times when these ice fields have been increasing, as in the period of the Little Ice Age (LIA).

The warming between the end of the LIA (~1850) and say, 1920, gets very little attention, because it happened without the simultaneous increase in CO2. The warming from 1979 to 1995 is regarded as being caused by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Just how much of that increase was caused by CO2 is still in fact an open question. Why the increase over that period should almost exclusively be ascribed to increases in CO2, whereas the earlier increase in the temperature of the same globe, is not ascribable to increases in CO2 is a mystery to some of us who are often described as being ignorant. If such lack of understanding is a measure of ignorance, then I admit to being so defined.

I had originally (1980 to 2006) been very interested in the idea that carbon dioxide increases could seriously warm the globe and believed that the world should find some way to urgently cut its emissions, not being aware then that China would be moving so quickly to modernise its economy and to depend so heavily on the use of coal. For that reason, as a physicist who worked in spectroscopy, the area of research which studies such things as the behaviour of gases which absorb electromagnetic radiation, I sought to obtain as much information as I could from the experts - the many climatologists in the CSIRO and in the various climate units established in nearly all of the significant universities in Australia.

My correspondence with leaders in the field here in Australia, David Karoly (Melbourne), Penny Whetton (Head of Climate group, CSIRO), Will Steffen (ANU), Andy Pitman and Matthew England (UNSW) and many others who I had approached as a fellow scientist (retired) seeking information in the form of published or unpublished material on the subject of global warming caused by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, resulted in my being provided with two references only which it was claimed demonstrated that increasing CO2 would lead to catastophic global warming. One was an obscure paper by a Polish scientist, Zastawney, who showed that while there would be a small increase in warming, it was actually much smaller than that suggested by the IPCC. The second was a widely quoted reference by Harries et al. who used satellite data from two quite different spectroscopic systems, 30 years apart, to claim that the radiation by CO2 from the planet was less in 1970 than in 1997. The paper has since been totally thrashed and the authors have admitted errors which render it inconsequential.

The most positive endorsement of the effect of carbon dioxide being responsible increased warming from 1979 to 1995, came from Dr Penny Whetton, of CSIRO, with whom I enjoyed a fairly extended exchange of emails on the problem of detailed studies on the effects of CO2 and through which she genuinely tried, I believe, to find substantive publications demonstrating the Enhanced Green House Effect (EGHE). After advising effectively that her group could not recommend any publication which clearly demonstrated the effect of increased CO2 (to be distinguished from the original warming which can be ascribed to the initial amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide as identified by Fourier and Arrhenius (GHE)) she pointed me to the statement in the IPCC Report AR4 2007 and in the CSIRO's contemporaneous report “Climate Change in Australia – 2007” which says:

“We believe that most of the increase in global temperatures during the second half of the twentieth century was very likely due to increases in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

Further examination of this belief, leads one to read in some detail, the IPCC reports and in particular the latest, now 5 years old, AR4 -2007.

One finds that the projections of global warming because of increased CO2 are based SOLELY on models. The retreat of Himalayan glaciers, melting of Arctic and Greenland Ice are measures of global warming of course. Warming of oceans and global temperatures can also be measured, but such measurements do not in themselves present evidence for the cause. In any case, much older historic records show very clearly that the extent of Arctic ice has been much less in the past than it is now - and in quite recent past, as in 1920.

Similarly, the current Greenland glaciers cover many areas of what had been flourishing Viking settlements in the MWP. Would a reversion to the temperatures of the 11th century be as bad as the freezing period of the LIA which caused the Vikings to abandon the region and caused starvation in much of Europe?

Thus the modelling is singularly important in “climate change” projections and it is interesting to read the facts as presented by the IPCC, regarding the selection and use of models.

First one finds that the 23 models used to find an average climate sensitivity – the increase in global temperature to be expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from a basis of 380 ppmv - were selected on the basis that their outputs were “plausible” i.e. they all showed that increases in CO2 caused an increase (as “expected”) in global temperatures. “Implausible” models were excluded.

Secondly, the 23 models all provided different results ranging from 1 to 4.5 degrees as the increase in global temperature from a doubling of CO2. Thus the errors in the sample of results was at least +-3.5 C, indicating that within the error limits of the models providing the lowest results, a value of -2.5 is also “plausible”– to use the IPCC term - (i.e. pointing to cooling, not warming). One does not know which of the 23 models is actually the nearest to being correct. The remaining 22 of them are obviously wrong!!

Thirdly, from AR4, many of these models had been “tested” by varying input parameters to show that they could be “made” to reproduce actual climate scenarios from past years, BUT, none had been tested by hind-casting, in which a model is set up in say 1920 and run to 1990 (70 years in the future) to examine if it can reproduce the known climate of that year. In the words of the author of Sections 8.1.2.1 and 8.1.2.2, “We are just about to consider that”. One gathers from this that they had been using these models as forecasters for some 25 years at that stage (2007), but had not, apparently, ever attempted what, for ALL modelling, is usually one of the FIRST exercises – to test whether the model works on real data. If not, in the real world of physics or any other discipline, it is either scrapped or reformulated. Apparently not in climatology!! Why not?
It is for these reasons that I still await scientific confirmation that carbon dioxide is the cause of what is euphemistically referred to as climate change.

If any one on this forum can show that the material presented by CSIRO and the IPCC, as described above, is wrong and can provide me with a paper – peer reviewed or otherwise – which clearly demonstrates that carbon dioxide increases will produce significant increases in global temperatures, I will rethink my stance on the current debate regarding “climate change”

John Nicol and his fellow pseudo-skeptic deniers wish to maintain the Goldilocks fantasy regardless of the evidence. That somehow magically the earth will maintain the stable temperatures we have enjoyed over the rise of civilisation no matter how much GHG we throw into the atmosphere.
He acknowledges the existence of the GH effect but somehow seems to think that it will always magically keep us in that "not too hot, not too cold but just right" zone - regardless of what we do.

I wish he was right.

The evidence says otherwise.

He appeals to cherry picked examples of times when parts of the world had warmer weather (such as in the so called MWP) but completely fails to understand that globally there has never been such warming in the course of human history. John, I have news for you, the MWP was a localised NOT a global phenomenon and it was NOT as warm as today.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Moberg_Hockey_Stick.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temp_Pattern_1999_2008_NOAA.jpg

You can't pick on a single region and say what happened there is what happened everywhere. The climate system tends to move heat energy around.

But then saying such things about climate is what the Heartland Institute used to pay John's local climate "sceptics" group to do didn't it?

On every single measure we have globally ice mass is reducing
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/mean_anomaly_1953-2009.png
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/1012_arctic_antarctic_anoms_smooth_560.png
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/glaciermasstrend1980-2010.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GRACE_2010.gif

John Nicol think's it's Pixie dust doing it apparently

He would also like to pretend that the PETM 56 millions ago didn't happen.

Global temperature rose five degrees Celsius 56 million years ago in response to a massive injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That intense gas release was only 10 percent of the rate at which heat-trapping greenhouse gases are building up in the atmosphere today.
The speed of today’s rise is more troubling than the absolute magnitude, because adjusting to rapid cli¬mate change is very difficult.

That WASNT a model John, that was the planet responding to increasing levels of GHGs

Mr Nicol thinks that AGW is false. He has no idea what he is talking about and has about as much credibility as Goldilocks and the Three Bears

John Nicol

" Warming of oceans and global temperatures can also be measured, but such measurements do not in themselves present evidence for the cause.".

But they do radically narrow down what the possible causes might be John.Ocean heat accumulation in the last 1/2 century is 3-4 times larger than can be explained by even a herculean notion of accumulation fromthe largest terrestrial source - geothermal heat. So put very simply John, that is direct evidence that the source involves the Earths energy imbalance with space. A terrestrial source for that much heat is impossible. Since the Sun has been slightly cooling over the same period that side of the energy balance can't be the source of the heat. Something is restricting the flow of IR from the Earth out to space.

John Nicol

" In any case, much older historic records show very clearly that the extent of Arctic ice has been much less in the past than it is now - and in quite recent past, as in 1920. "

No they do not John! They show that ice extent during the 30's was lower than the values that existed 30+ years ago, but they were not lower than the extent figures we see today. The extent decline in the Kara, Laptev & East-Siberian seas is unprecedented in any observational history. Also the ice decline in the Arctic has been occuring and accelerating for 30 years. The extent changes in the 30's only occurred for around a decade. More importantly we have seen a nearly 85% decline in sea ice VOLUME over the same period. If the trends in volume continue on the same course as they have over the last 3 decades, we are on track for a virtually ice free Arctic ocean in September within 3 years.

John Nicol

"One finds that the projections of global warming because of increased CO2 are based SOLELY on models. "

Again simply not true John.

Prediction of global warming fall into 2 categories - Models, and Climate Sensitivity estimations based on observationspast and present. Well over 1/2 the papers putting estimates on Climate Sensitivity are based on calculations frompast climates - the oldest looks at climate change over the last 420 million years.

John

"One can simply ignore comments for which we do not have an appropriate or convincing answer and pass on to read those which suit us by reinforcing our own ideas without challenging us to think..."

I couldn't agree more. Since you have obviously had a change of heart from your previous position about this, would you care to lead by example.

As I have asked you a number of times in the past, what is your opinion of Edwards et al 1992, Conrath et al 1970? What did you think of my criticisms of Jack Barrett's paper?

Balls in your court John

My mistake and my apologies to the editor. My earlier comment containing this was not deleted. My apologies to the editor for my false accusation.

"from the crowd"? What crowd is that?

Matt Stevens: "I find this comment both insulting"

Your claim: "I am not a denier" is an insult to my intelligence considering what you said earlier.

If you are insulted, now you know how I feel.

Matt, the alarmists on forums such as this have little but childish comments and references to obscure forecasts. Sometimes the best forecast is not at all useful. Unfortunately, so-called scientists and alarmists seem to treat forecasts as if they were fact. You have to question their lack of numeracy. Or, it may be that they do not understand what a stochastic time series is. Or, that they do, but choose to ignore it since it is much easier to make and explain a linear projection. Economics, statistics and mathematics are actually sciences. So, it is clear that these overgrown children do not respect the science.

"it may be that they do not understand what a stochastic time series is"

Oh, the irony. This from the crowd that whines about "no significant warming in 15 years".

For someone who claims not to be a denier you are doing a pretty good job of denying the science.

Perhaps you donl;t udnerstand what biodiversity is?

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/climate-change-could-kill-one-in-10-species-by-end-of-the-century-2312114.html

The evidence is pretty clear that the habitat loss aassociated with the rgional impacts of climate change will result in species loss. Of course some will adapt. many will not

You then say that we as humans will adapt. Of course we will. No scientific projection has suggested otherwise. But you cavalierly dismiss "disasters and loss of life" as if it were everday - and NO they are NOT the smaes things as occured in past increases and decreases in temperature since, for humans, there has never been such a change since the dawn of civilisation.

Is this the new tactic of denialism? Claim not to deny the science and then demonstrate by every single post and argument that that's exactly what they do?

Scientists do more dodgy forecasting than statisticians.

A statistician is a scientist.

Matt Stevens said: "We really are kidding ourselves if we think we can change it (climate)."

and then claimed "I am not a denier".

Thus contradicting yourself.

Your disrespect is well earned.

But isn't water vapour a deadly poisin?!?!?

Yes, Spiro, water in any form can be deadly. Remember, the Vatican invented water-boarding?
;]

"water in any form can be deadly."? Better stay on the beer then!