Climate change, sea level rise and the letter writers

collage64_560

“We are putting climate change back on the agenda in Victoria”, climate minister Lisa Neville declared at the Australian Coastal Councils Conference last week, promising to make the Victorian state a national and international leader on the issue.

In the 64th Sustainable Hour, we are talking about climate change and sea level rise as well, and we take a look at the debate which has been going on for more than a year in the Letters to the Editor section of Geelong Independent about whether climate change and sea level rise is myth or reality.

In particular, the two gentlemen Alan Barron and Ray Black have been arguing tirelessly back and forth on the topics. Today, we have invited them to join us in the studio of The Sustainable Hour on 94.7 The Pulse. You will find more info on this – MUCH more info, actually – below. Because this is a debate which will not stop with these words that were said in this program.

Guests in the studio:
Alan Barron
Ray Black

Prerecorded segment:
Christine Couzens MP, ALP, talking at a South Geelong Primary School fundraising event

Youtube speech excerpt:
John Kerry, Secretary of State, USA



Listen to The Sustainable Hour no. 64:

» To open or download this programme in mp3-format, right-click here (Mac: CTRL + click)


» Subscribe to ‘The Sustainable Hour’ podcast — via iTunes or via your own podcast/RSS software





Excerpts from the hour

christine-SGPS-TPSstall

» Rightclick here to download the mp3-file

Christine Couzens MP talks about the new fundraising campaign to get solar on the roof of South Geelong Primary School.

» Read more about the project – and support it with a few dollars! – here:
www.thepeoplessolar.com/sgps





. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“This issue affects everyone on the planet. And if any challenge requires global cooperation and urgent action, this is it.”
John Kerry, Secretary of State, USA – on 12 March 2015

» Transcript of John Kerry’s speech: www.state.gov/secretary



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

alanIMG_6923_560

» Rightclick here to download the mp3-file

An excerpt of Alan Barron’s comments in The Sustainable Hour.

After the radio show, Alan Barrow submitted a comment in writing to Ray Black which is posted at the bottom of this page



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

rayIMG_6927_560

» Rightclick here to download the mp3-file

An excerpt of Ray Black’s commenting on Alan Barron’s statements.

At one point in the radio show, Ray Black reads a quote from this piece by Brian Schmidt in The Age:

» The Age – 16 February 2015:
Jury in on climate change, so stop using arguments of convenience and listen to experts



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


More information

About the the topics we talked about in this Sustainable Hour


Earth Under Water In Next 20 Years?

‘The Future of Earth – Global Warming and Climate Change Facts’

Published by World Geographic Channel on youtube.com on 3 September 2014

» Read more here: worldgeographicchannel.com



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

world-met-day

“Climate Knowledge for Climate Action”

 

23 March 2015 is World Meteorological Day

“Climate knowledge for climate action” is the World Meteorological Organization’s theme for this year. It provides an opportunity to take stock of the climate knowledge built in the last decades as an essential base to support the path towards more ambitious action to address climate change and climate variability.

» www.wmo.int/worldmetday



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


earthhourWWF-header

Pledge to Turn off my lights for Earth Hour

on 28 March 2015



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Leaked email reveals who’s who list of climate denialists”

A network of pundits and scientists is consulted about stopping release of ‘Merchants of Doubt’, a documentary film that exposes their work.

» www.insideclimatenews.org


“The University of Tasmania research published in the international journal Global Environmental Change this month found Australia topped the list in a study of 14 advanced countries. In Australia, 17 per cent of the population believed environmental issues were exaggerated and the rise in the world’s temperatures caused by climate change was not very dangerous.”


» Geelong Advertiser – 24 July 2015:
Researchers reveal common traits of climate sceptics
“Australia has the highest rate of climate sceptics among the world’s advanced countries, beating the US and the UK, according to a new university study.”





. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Letters to the Editor

Examples of letters that have been published in Geelong Independent and Geelong Advertiser:

Addy27-11-14_AlanB

12-06-14-Alan-Barron300px

RayBlack16Jan2015_560





. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In anticipation of two answers

I was rather hoping that Peter Rees might have responded to my letter of 20/3 where I pointed out that NASA climatologists have measured that 0.58 watts per square metre more of sunlight is absorbed by the planet than is radiated away due to increased atmospheric CO2. This is equal to the energy of 65,000 Loy Yangs now locked in for possibly thousands of years. I was thinking this would be the ultimate refutation that planetary warming ceased in 1998, and thought that it would at least illicit some form of reply. But recent letters show Peter has been able to disregard it.

To show the scale of this imbalance one can calculate that if this energy was all concentrated over Australia, it would raise the temperature of the top 1 km of our soils by about 0.9 degrees each year.

Would Peter perhaps reconsider his position, or maybe even point out why the NASA measurement does not undermine his case. If NASA can put men on the moon, maybe this measurement is accurate and so we would be very foolish to ignore it.
The other question that I have previously put to sceptics in this paper, but without receiving a reply, is why the collateral damage of ocean acidification is not in itself sufficient to have us urgently move away from fossil fuels regardless of climate change.

With the greatest respect and in anticipation of two answers.

Ray Black



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ocean acidity

Carbon dioxide ceased to be good for humanity when levels reached around 350 ppm. At 400ppm it is positively toxic, not only ending 11,000 years of climate stability, but also acidifying oceans.

In trying to draw climate deniers into recognising that another reason to rapidly transition from fossil fuels is to preserve marine ecosystems (1/5), I erroneously thought they would have to admit to the logic. After all the science is so simple. CO2 dissolves in water to form carbonic acid. So oceans will acidify as atmospheric CO2 rises. Not surprisingly ocean acidity has increased 30% since industrialisation and marine ecosystems are already affected.

Yet Tim Saclier (15/5) quotes from a document put together by a PhD student who has erroneously juxtaposed historical pH values with a controlled scientific study by NOAA to conclude that ocean acidity, far from rising, has actually fallen in the previous century. The document is demonstrably junk science at its worst. Even a cursory trawling of the internet or even reading a standard environmental textbook would demonstrate clearly that this conclusion could not possibly be true.

I am at a loss to know why the climate denier machine works the way that it does, requiring a complete detachment from the real science and a complete disregard for any logical and moral precaution. Perhaps someone is paying them. I don’t know.
What I do know is that we have a major problem and the deniers try to confuse us all. All eyes should be on the UN Paris climate conference in December, the outcome of which will pretty much seal our future climate and ecological trajectories.

Ray Black




. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



Follow-up on the radio show

1. Alan Barron

On 19 March 2015 we received this post from Alan Barron:

Hi Mik and Tony,

I’ve put some thoughts down on carbon and climate. Feel free to post on your website. I’d welcome the opportunity to discuss this with someone on your show.

Best wishes,

Alan

 _ _ _ _ _

Carbon Dioxide – facts you should know

By Alan Barron, Thursday 19th March, 2015.
We are constantly being told by politicians, the mass media and high profile celebrity’s that we have to take action on climate change, to prevent dangerous global warming. The culprit we are told is carbon dioxide, or more specifically humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions, and the clearance of native vegetation in favour of commercial enterprises.

This campaign of misinformation about carbon dioxide has to stop. People have the right to know the full story about carbon dioxide rather than being force fed selected data concerning CO2.

The benefits of carbon dioxide far outweigh the negatives by far, and a modest warming in any case would be highly beneficial for the planet. To hold forth the idea that elevated levels of CO2 is only bad for the planet is sheer nonsense. A warmer climate would be better for crop yield, a very important consideration considering the rapidly increasing world population. After all if you want things to grow, where do you plant the seedlings?  Why in a Greenhouse of course!

In terms of a ‘greenhouse effect’, water vapour has much more impact on climate than carbon dioxide as it makes up 96-97% of ‘greenhouse gases’.  CO2 makes up about 2.5%, other gases, such as methane, under one per cent. 

Water vapour is a very efficient ‘greenhouse gas’ and is approximately 27 times better at being such than CO2. Because of its atomic structure, most long wave infra-red radiation passes straight through CO2 and escapes out into space. CO2 retains heat for a nano-second so it’s misleading to say that CO2 acts like a thermal blanket trapping in the heat continually. 

CO2 is commonly labelled a ‘pollutant’. This is an oxymoron. CO2 is essential for life on this planet. Human beings and all living creatures are carbon based. Life on this planet is not possible without CO2, so how on earth can it be a `pollutant?’ In terms of pollution, if you can see it or smell it then it’s not carbon dioxide as it’s colourless and odourless.

Australian’s CO2 footprint is 1.5% of global emissions or to put it another way, ONE molecule in 5.7 million! The Carbon Tax was brought in to achieve a reduction to ONE molecule in 6 Million! So any action Australia takes is irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. All the hoopla on taking action to reduce CO2 emissions might make the tree huggers feel good as they sleep at night, but it won’t do a jolly thing for the planet or the climate.

Carbon dioxide constitutes only about 0.039% (about 400 parts per million) of the atmosphere. In terms of ‘greenhouse gases,’ it makes up less than 3 per cent. Carbon dioxide has a very limited time in the atmosphere from 7 to 14 years and not 100 years or longer as claimed by the IPCC.

IPCC

The peak body on climate change the IPCC, claims the probability of alleged global warming is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%. Of course they would say that seeing as their brief was to investigate the human contribution to climate change and to virtually ignore the natural causes.  So the IPCC have focused on man’s activities and latched on to carbon dioxide as this is a common component in many of humanity’s activities.

When you look at the climate change industry, it is informed by four major players, the IPCC, CRU in England, The Goddard Institute and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) both in the USA. Most governments agencies around the world including the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in Australia, and The Met Office in the UK, take their lead from the IPCC.

Most of the alarm over carbon dioxide is not based on empirical evidence but rather computer modelling (GCM’s).  According to Professor Brian Cox who was in Australia late last year (Q&A 20 October 2014), the best science global warming theorists have is future projections of computer modelling. They are saying that while there is little hard evidence for global warming (the planet warms and cools all the time), climate modelling suggests that given the rising levels of carbon dioxide,  it’s inevitable the planet will warm up dangerously so there is a need to reduce humanity’s carbon footprint.

So is the elevated levels of carbon dioxide really the key component in global warming?  (That’s working on the assumption global warming is happening right now, a claim which I argue is not supported by the science).

It is alleged that global warming theory is (1) accepted by 97 per cent of scientists, (2) that the science is done and dusted, (3) that many species are threatened with extinction including polar bears, (4) that extreme weather events like bushfires, drought and floods are increasing, (5) that ice caps are melting which is causing coastal flooding, (6) there will be massive climate migration due to coastal flooding and food shortages caused by global warming.  Suffice to say I won’t deal with these issues now other than to say, not one of the above statements is true, they are purely speculative and have no basis in fact.

Getting back to carbon dioxide, let’s crunch some numbers.


Greenhouse gases
* Carbon dioxide is often presented as the major greenhouse gas (GHG). However water vapour is the major greenhouse gas as it makes up 97% of Green house gas’s.

* Carbon dioxide – all sources – makes up only about 2-3% of greenhouse gases.

Of the total carbon dioxide component, 96.5 percent of it is naturally occurring.

* Mankind’s contribution is a tiny 3% of the 3%. Or to put it another way, carbon dioxide comprises only 0.39 per cent of the atmosphere.

Of each 85,600 molecules in the atmosphere, a tiny 33 molecules are carbon dioxide.  Of this 33, only ONE, yes only ONE, is anthropogenic in origin.  Man’s emissions only accounts for just 1 molecule!

Once CO2 has reached its saturation point it has no further impact on climate

Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian physicist has to my knowledge been the only person who has formulated a Greenhouse Gas Theory which fits all of what we know about climate to this point in time.   Dr Miskolczi argues that there is a limit to the green-house effect, and once that limit has been reached (`the critical limit’), then adding further green-house gases does not make the planet any warmer. The Earth’s atmosphere dynamically keeps its greenhouse effect right at its critical value, regardless of our continuing CO2 emissions.

Emitting CO2 into the air cannot increase the greenhouse factor because any impact of human addition of CO2 is dynamically countered by about 1% decrease of the main greenhouse gas, water vapour (moisture) in the atmosphere according to Miskolczi.

Once CO2 levels rise about 50ppmv (currently it’s 400), the impact of carbon dioxide is logarithmic. That is to say, you would have to raise CO2 to extraordinary levels to get even a slight increase in overall temperatures.

This idea that the temperature will keep rising in simple step with CO2 levels, is simply not correct.

It does not matter if CO2 levels are at 300, 350, 400 or even 450ppm, the MAXIMUM IMPACT of CO2 has been achieved, so it’s largely irrelevant if CO2 levels remain at current levels, or even higher, or even at Hansen’s mythical safety level of 350ppm.

Even it mankind burnt all so called ‘fossil fuels’ tomorrow (which isn’t going to happen), the CO2 level would rise to about 550-600ppm and result in a rise of about 1.5C. Humanity is not going to burn all its fossil fuels tomorrow so there is no reason to panic, and keep in mind that during the dinosaur area, carbon levels reached 1,800ppm.

Annual Variation

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is around 750 gigatonnes (GT).  It also must be noted that the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere varies on an annual cycle.  This variation is usually around five percent (370 to 390ppm in 2011, or 37GT).  The total annual contribution of humanity to CO2 levels (6GT, and if you include land use, it’s 29GT).  Either way this is still well below the natural variation of CO2 (37 GT) in the atmosphere.  So logically humanity’s CO2 emissions cannot be driving climate change.

Bushfires

Each year there are around 8,000 to 10,000 bushfires happening on the globe at any one given time spewing out some 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. Humanity’s annual contribution of 29 gigatonnes of CO2 – which is tiny compared to the 750 gigatonnes moving through the carbon cycle each year from natural sources.   www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Yet somehow mankind’s piddling C02 emissions are driving “dangerous climate change”.   Really?   Mankind’s 29GT is only 6.6% of the amount put into the atmosphere from bushfires each year!

I’m discounting volcanic activity completely.  Even if humanity stopped completely all industrial activity, and all of humanity went and simply lived like the Amish in the USA, then it still wouldn’t make any significant impact on climate.

Other factors

Global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased by 3% in 2011.  These are the main findings of the annual report ‘Trends in global CO2 emissions‘.  The oceans contain 37,400 billion tonnes (GT) of suspended carbon dioxideForest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide.

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-global-co2-emissions.html

The oceans of the world contain over 50 times the amount of C02 as contained in the atmosphere.  Let’s now look at volcanic activity.

Volcanic activity happens around the planet, day in, day out – year after year. Major eruptions like Mt Pinatubo, Mt St Helens, Krakatoa, and Eyjafjallajokull in 2010 in Iceland, emit huge amounts of greenhouse particulates into the atmosphere. These large volcanic activities are ongoing and large eruptions happen every so often.

Mt Pinaturbo ejected roughly 10,000,000,000 tons (1.1×1010 short tonnes) or 10 km3 (2.4 cu mi) of magma, and 20,000,000 tonnes (22,000,000 short tons) SO2 (Sulphur Dioxide), bringing vast quantities of minerals and metals to the surface environment. It injected more particulate into the stratosphere than any eruption since Krakatoa in 1883.  wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

Compare this with humanity’s activities (including deforestation) between 2,000 and 2,011, an estimated cumulative global total of 420 billion tonnes of CO2 were emitted.  www.phys.org/news/2012-07-global-co2-emissions.html

Long term is much better than short term trend

What global warming theorists fail to mention is that if there is a slightly warming of the planet, this will be a good thing for humanity as it will increase food yields.  What is to be feared that if there is a cooling.

Trying to frame the climate change debate since 1850 is disingenuous. Professor Plimer in Heaven and Earth says that 150 years is a nano-second in geographical time. If we are to really understand long term climate trends, we should take a long term view over at least a thousand years.  Going by the long term trend over one and two several thousand years, the temperature has declined even allowing for the recent warming.  On current trends the Earth is heading for a major cooling. More snow and ice is on the way, despite the hoopla made over the slight rise in temperature in the past 150 years. This is a mere blimp in geological time. It’s the long term trend which should concern us.

Components of climate

There is far too much fixation with the current climate debate. The following is a list of factors which form and drive climate and weather ranging from the most significant to the least significant.

Changes to whole planet

Totally irrespective of geography – nothing to do with weather.

1.The Sun, Sun spot activity, Cosmic winds, Heliosphere                         

Without the Sun there would be no light or warmth, or no life.

2.       Magnetosphere

The magnetosphere protects the planet from too much UV and makes

life possible on Earth

3. Deviation of Earth’s rotational axis to the vertical.

Earth’s orbital variations (The Earth’s tilt ranges from 22 to 24.5. Currently it’s 23.3). Our seasons are controlled by the angle of deviation of our rotational axis to the vertical. The angle changes over time and varies between 22.1 and 25.5 deg to the vertical. This variation causes drastic changes to our climate, from ice ages to raging heatwaves.  We have been there many times  before over millennia.

4.  Variation of Earth’s orbit. 

Variation in distance from the Sun; more elongated the more temperatures drop; `Milankovic effect’).

Secondary factors influencing climate

5.       Proximity to equator – The further away one gets, the colder it gets

6.       Direction of prevailing winds,

7.     Topographic factors – shape of land, proximity to other land masses,

   elevation and distance from coast

Factors which influence weather

8. Influence of Moon on tides

(Including air tides), weather comes from the ocean and most rain falls back into it.  Ocean influences

(The El Nino) this is part of the moon’s influence. Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO),

Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). Jetstream, Gulfstream

9. Level and intensity of cloud cover.                                                         

Keeps heat in and decides what rain will fall and where and when

10. Miscellaneous –other factors                                                                

Impact on weather is minimal, these include;

(a) Land use changes,  Ice-reflectivity feedback,

(b) Industrial and commercial activity of mankind including CO2 emissions,

( c ) Size of populations.

(d)  Volcanic activity.

 

Thus we can see that the top 4 account for 85% of the total. These factors are completely outside mankind’s ability to influence or manipulate. Humanity has can choice as to where they care to reside.  This decision will have more impact on how they experience climate/weather rather than land usage, industrial activity and also size of populations.  Man’s industrial production and use of fossil fuels has no significant impact on climate as climate is controlled by factors 1 to 4 above.

In terms of weather, while land usage, industrial production, use of fossil fuel etc, will have a mild local impact on weather (heat island affect).  Man’s activities do not have the ability impact climate to any measurable degree.

Conclusion

Many environmentalists and politicians hide behind the sanctity of the peer review process. That is, the peer review process has vindicated the global warming hypothesis so one is safe in accepting the `science’ that anthropogenic carbon emissions are causing global warming.

Three things. Firstly, global temperatures have remained stable for the past 18 years despite the massive increase in CO2. Even if a little warming did occur it would be highly beneficial for the planet as things grow bigger and better with more atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Secondly, the IPCC, CRU, NOAA, CSIRO and other climate agencies have been found to be using homogenised and massaged data. To make wildly exaggerated claims regarding the future impacts of climate change based on re-worked data is meaningless.  When it’s all said and done, the claims of the IPCC should be taken with a grain of salt – as an educated guess if you will, but certainly not as a proven ‘fact’. The IPCC claim they think they are 90% right when blaming CO2 for climate change.  However, there are now over 30,487 scientists who disagree with the IPCC over global warming.

Thirdly, it is argued that even if scientists have got it wrong on climate, the precautionary principle – or ‘risk management’ requires humanity to take corrective measures now to mitigate the effects of possible acute rises in global temperatures.

However precautionary principle ignores the risks of going ahead with a carbon tax, ETS, or a Renewable Energy target (RET) – which could turn out to be white elephants and involved far more expenditure than by adopting a wait and see approach as recommended by Bjorn Lomborg.  The precautionary principle is nothing more than one half of a risk-benefit analysis – the ‘risk’ half – and is therefore incapable of assessing the true impact of any emissions trading scheme or RET.

Even if one did accept the ‘compliant’ about global warming, the `cure’ would be far worse! All the billions spent on trying to solve global warming has had no measurable impact. Western economies continue to squander billions on addressing climate change and worse still will continue to spend billions in the years ahead.

Unless the jihad to ‘save the planet’ can be slowed or stopped, by 2050 western economies will be bogged down in a green quagmire with high unemployment, stagnation and a sharp drop in the standard of living.

Carbon mitigation measures are doomed to failure, and what’s the point if you if you can’t influence climate to any significant degree but end up making life worse for most people by stuffing up the global economy and inducing a deep recession? What’s the point in ‘saving’ the planet if millions of people are condemned to the unemployment queue and a life of dependency and misery?

Meanwhile with the money saved by not wasting it on trying to solve the alleged problem of global warming, we could have raised every human being on the face of the planet above poverty, disease, hunger and homelessness.

Humanity must stop and recheck it’s stance on carbon dioxide. Instead of governments being fixated with reducing society’s `carbon footprint’ by squandering billions on renewable energy, it would be more prudent to do their homework first. A good start would be to hold a Royal commission on climate science so as to test the veracity of consensus science.

We need to get the science right first before trashing the global economy and throwing millions out of work? After all, that’s what the precautionary principle says to do.

Carbon dioxide plays a small but significant part in weather.  However, it plays an even lesser role in the formation of climate as I have tried to show with the above figures.  If a Martian came down and observed the current obsession with CO2, he would be right in concluding the arguments presented for action on climate change were not only strange, but the people pushing it were totally out of their tree.

Best wishes,

Alan


Alan Barron’s references

Climate Science

Climate: The Counter Consensus, Professor Robert Carter, Stacey International, London, UK, 2010, Chapters 3 (Climate sensitivity), 5 (computer modelling).

Heaven and Earth, Ian Plimer, Connor Court publishing, Ballan 2009.

How to Get Expelled from School, Ian Plimer, Connor Court publishing, Ballan 2011.

A Fresh Approach to Magnetism, Thomas T.S. Watson, Bell Post Hill, Vic. 2006.

 

Consensus science

Climate: The Counter Consensus, Professor Robert Carter, Stacey International, London, UK, 2010, pages 191ff.

“There is no such thing as consensus science.  If it’s consensus, it isn’t science.  If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”  Michael Crichton.  Page 191.

 

Accuracy of the science

Climate agencies revise weather records  The Australian, Wed, 11 Feb 2015.

The Climate Emails, John Costella,  The Lavoisier Group. 2010.

» www.theaustralian.com.au


Temperature tampering

The Climate Caper, Gareth W Paltridge, Connor Court publishing, Ballan 2009. Page 105.

Climate: The Counter Consensus, Professor Robert Carter, Stacey International, London, UK, 2010, pages 159ff.

» www.jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/heat-is-on-over-weather-bureau-homogenising-temperature-records/

» www.jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/whos-going-to-be-sacked-for-making-up-global-warming-at-rutherglen/

» www.jennifermarohasy.com/2014/05/corrupting-australias-temperature-record/

» www.jennifermarohasy.com/2009/06/how-the-us-temperature-record-is-adjusted/

» www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-of-meteorology-altering-climate-figures/story-e6frg6xf-1227033735740

 

Warming events

How to Get Expelled from School, Ian Plimer, Connor Court publishing, Ballan 2011. Pages 173, 205


IPCC, and Global Warming predictions

The Best of Andrew Bolt – Still not sorry. Dan McDonnell, Herald Sun, Melbourne, Vic, 2005.  Chapter 5, The Green Religion.



Precautionary Principle, Renewable Energy, Population

50 to 1 video;  www.topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project

Back to the 19th Century,   Ray Evans, Tom Quick, Alan Moran, The Lavoisier Group, 2009.

Little Green Lies, Jeff Bennett, Connor Court publishing, Ballan 2012.

Blue Planet in Green Shackles, Vaclav Klaus, CEI Washington, D.C. 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, Tom Bethell, Regnery Publishing, Washington DC, USA 2005. Chapter1 Global Warning. Chapter 6, Pages 49ff, 60. 61,

 

Looking after the Environment

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, Bjorn Lomborg, Cambridge University Press, 2001

Trashing the Planet, Dixy Lee Ray, Regnery Gateway, Washing DC, USA. 1990.0


Green policies can damage the Environment

Killing the Earth to Save It,  James Delingpole, Connor Court publishing, Ballan 2012.

 

Spending

Climate: The Counter Consensus, Professor Robert Carter, Stacey International, London, UK, 2010,  Chapter 9 Science is not about consensus.

How to Get Expelled from School, Ian Plimer, Connor Court publishing, Ballan 2011. Page 59

 

Recommended Websites;

  1. 2012 Heartland Conference
  2. Aust Environment Foundation
  3. Carbon Sense Coalition, Australia
  4. Climate Debate Daily
  5. Climate Science Coalition of America
  6. Galileo Movement
  7. Global Warming JoNova
  8. Icecap USA
  9. International CSC
  10. Lavoisier Group, Australia
  11. New Zealand CSC
  12. Watts Up With That?
  13. inconvenient skeptic
  14. climate depot

Other Books

1 – The State of Humanity –  Julian Simon.

2 – Climatism!Steve Goreham

 

Precautionary Principle, Renewable Energy, Population

50 to 1 video;   http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/

Back to the 19th Century,   Ray Evans, Tom Quick, Alan Moran, The Lavoisier Group, 2009.

Little Green Lies, Jeff Bennett, Connor Court publishing, Ballan 2012.

Blue Planet in Green Shackles, Vaclav Klaus, CEI Washington, D.C. 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, Tom Bethell, Regnery Publishing, Washington DC, USA 2005. Chapter1 Global Warning. Chapter 6, Pages 49ff, 60. 61,


The above links have been compiled by Alan Barron, who defines himself as a Climate Skeptic.



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



2. Ray Black

On 21 March 2015 we received the following email from Ray Black. (This was not a response to the above text by Alan Barron, as we had not published Alan’s text by that time.)

Ray Black writes:

“Alan is so ignorant of the science that he thinks that he has made a major discovery by saying that earth’s temperature rises first and then the CO2, as if this means that carbon dioxide is not significant in the process. The science clearly shows us that temperature does rise first due to the earth’s orbit moving on average closer to the sun as we come out of an ice age, but if this was the only effect earth’s temperature would only rise about 1 degree. In response to this rise, CO2 moves out of the oceans and into the atmosphere further increasing this warming which in turn draws more CO2 out of the ocean, and so on, in a positive feedback cycle. This feedback compounds with water vapour further raising the temperature. (In his letters Alan is also confused about water vapour)

So the temperature rises 5 degrees but only by virtue of the action of carbon dioxide and ice sheet retraction. This actually argues against Alan’s point in that ‘small’ changes we make to the atmosphere are likely to compound. Alan really must learn the science and stop confusing himself and others.

I also call on Alan to be much more careful with his numbers. Alan did in fact say that in the mediaeval warm period the temperature was 5 degrees warmer. It wasn’t. It was maybe 1 degree warmer. Why this is important is the deniers make a big deal of the mediaeval warm being warmer than what we have at the present. It’s not. We are now warmer. In actual fact it wouldn’t make any difference whether the mediaeval warm was warmer or not. The point is to realise that what has happened since 1975 is a warming due to greenhouse emissions and this isn’t going to go away. It’s not a natural cycle like the mediaeval warm was and the earth can’t naturally cycle away from it because greenhouse climate change is locked in for most likely thousands of years.

His argument of 1 molecule in 84,000 (or whatever it was) is just false and misleading. Alan must study the greenhouse effect. It would save him being mislead by just recopying the misinformation contained in the climate denier material. (I note in the most recent Geelong Independent, Alan says he subscribes to greenhouse gas theory. No he doesn’t. I am confused!)

I find it unsatisfactory that Alan who writes so prolifically to guide us all into correct thinking should be ignorant of the standard science. I suggest he needs to consider that he is reading the wrong material that is spruiked by interest groups. Why on earth would they be objective? Why would they ever be a contest for the peer reviewed research. Putting an N in front of IPCC doesn’t mean you are an alternative voice. Some basic reflections are required here.

Kind regards.
Ray Black”

GI-article-w-ray-560

Ray Black’s references

» www.science.org.au/climatechange

» New Scientist

» Climate Change; Evidence and Causes (Royal Society and US National Academy of Science)

» Quantifying Impact of climate change on extreme heat in Australia (Climate council)

» The science of climate change (Australian Academy of Science)

» Sceptical science (website)

» Washington Post – 19 March 2015:
Scientists say Arctic sea ice just set a disturbing new record



The Guardian: “Here are some facts”

The threat to our planet and the lives of billions of people – not to mention big business – has led to wild claims on both sides of the divide. Here are some facts

climate-myths-TheGuardian56

» The Guardian:
Climate change: the big myths that need to be exploded


 

Compendia

“Climate change information, requisite actions and expert opinions”
Compiled by 100% renewable energy by 2020

» Too late to avoid global warming catastrophe
» Nuclear weapons ban, end poverty & reverse climate change
» Are we doomed?
» Stop climate crime
» Climate Justice & Intergenerational Equity
» Divest from fossil fuels
» Gas is not clean energy
» Biofuel Genocide
» Climate Genocide
» 100% renewable energy by 2020
» Cut carbon emissions 80% by 2020
» Carbon Debt Carbon Credit
» 300.org: return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm
» 2011 climate change course

NASA’s Earth Minute

NASA explains why climate change is a big deal in seven videos of 90 seconds or less



‘Earth has a fever’ – viewed over 100,000 times since it was posted on youtube.com on 2 October 2014.




Gas Problem

NASA runs a Climate Change channel on Youtube.com and has posted seven short animation videos which explain the issues with climate change, carbon emissions, global warming and more.

NASA has studied Earth more than any other planet in our solar system: “It’s one of our most important missions and our unique capabilities in space give us a global view of our changing planet. Subscribe to this bi-weekly animated series as we look at earth science topics and explain why climate change is a big deal in 90 seconds or less. Each video’s description contains links to more information about the subject addressed, NASA missions and resources for educators.”



“Scientists in the US report that the volume of Antarctic shelf ice is diminishing, and that there has been an 18% shrinkage in the mass of some ice floating on coastal waters over the last 18 years. And because much of the loss has been off West Antarctica, where shelf ice helps to keep the ice sheet stable, it could mean that global sea levels will rise even faster as a result of increased glacial flow into the ocean.”

» Climate News Network – 29 March 2015:
Shrinking of ice shelves raises sea level concerns





icon_small-arrow_RIGHT Podcasts and posts about climate change



Streaming live

facebook-square-logo2_300px

» The Sustainable Hour is streamed live on the Internet every Wednesday from 11am to 12pm (Melbourne time):
www.947thepulse.com – click on ‘Listen Live’

Podcast archive

Hours and hours of sustainable podcasts

» You can listen to all of The Sustainable Hour radio shows in full length and in selected excerpts:
Archive on climatesafety.info – with photos

Archive on cpod.org – with longer descriptions

Archive on itunes.apple.com – mobile phone friendly





. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Promote The Sustainable Hour

Print this A4-poster and put it on a wall or a board at your work place, a local café, shop or where ever you think there’d be people who’d find this information interesting.

thesustainab_flyer200

Go to our Facebook-page and give us a click on the LIKE-button.

Let the The Sustainable Hour’s listeners know about your green product. To become a business supporter or sponsor, contact: Liz Carr, Marketing & Business Development, 94.7 The Pulse

94.7 The Pulse

» 947thepulse.comGeelong’s Premier Community Radio Station



The Sustainable Hour on social media

» Facebook:  Overview of all podcast front covers

» Catch up on Twitter:  www.twitter.com/SustainableHour

» Twitter tag: @SustainableHour


Share on Twitter

» Share this particular podcast on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/SustainableHour/status/578128097704157184/photo/1


Share on Facebook

» If you’d like to share this page on Facebook, then copy this link:

(First paste the long link in a field on Facebook, wait until the photo has loaded, delete the link again, and then press ‘Post’)


Share on Pinterest

» Share this page on pinterest-logo

 


 

“Participation – that’s what’s gonna save the human race.”
Pete Seeger, American singer

 

One comment

  1. Hi Mik and Tony,

    Thanks for the invite to come and speak on your show this morning, it was greatly appreciated, and it was nice to meet you guys in person.  

    Going first has its advantages, but also has disadvantages. Dr Black was able to make many claims which obviously I disagree with and I had no right of reply or opportunity to redress.  (Maybe he goes first next time?)

    All the quotes you played on air were all people in support of global warming theory.  Secretary of State John Carey’s statement was one of the worst I’ve heard in a while.  It was all political, very little understanding of the science involved.  All the points he made were simply not supported by the science. For a man in his very influential position to be so ignorant, was unforgiveable. A few quotes from Prof. Bob Carter, Prof Ian Plimer, or Prof Richard Lindzen would have balanced it up more fairly.

    I neglected to mention the ClimateGate scandal. Many people are unaware of the climate gate scandal. Here we have leading scientists in leading climate agencies collaborating to `hide the decline’ because the data did not fit their global warming theory. These were not some uninfluential guys in remote unimportant universities, they were, and are still are, major influences in pushing the global warming scare.

     

    Yet our naïve politicians and the scientific establishment didn’t twig to this fact. Here were the major players caught with their fingers in the till and yet no one bothered to question them, or to request that a thorough investigation be conducted into their behaviour.

     

    There are many scientists who have worked with the IPCC and climate agencies around the world who have similar stories to tell. Tales of the deliberate manipulation of data by certain individuals to influence various reports and the stance taken by key institutions abound.

     

    IPCC

    Many scientists who have worked in the IPCC have made some startling observations. Chief among these is the fact that the IPCC methodologies are flawed and that the findings presented in the ‘Statement for policy makers’ (SPM) bears little resemblance to what actually is in the body of the report.

    The IPCC’s claim the probability that alleged global warming is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%, borders on the incredulous..  Governments assumes that the IPCC reports are accurate and has been checked by the peer reviewed processes.  However, in assessing any future predictions about the anticipated increase in temperature, while scientists are trained in a specific branch of science (Climatology, Meteorology, Atmospheric physics, Oceanography, Geophysics, etc) and to analyse data, is such training adequate to make predictions about future temperature trends over the next 100 years? A scientist would need training in a branch of mathematics including, Applied mathematics, Mathematical modelling, Numerical modelling, Bayesian inference, Mathematical statistics and Time series analysis.

    Universities such as ANU now offer courses in Bachelor of Computational Science (B.Comptl.Sci) which include modules on Differential equations ,Mathematical Methods,Numerical and Computational, techniques, Simulation and Modelling, Large Scale Matrix Computations, Programming and so on. One can also specialise in a major which include, physics , environmental modelling, genetics , mathematics (fundamental and applied) and computer science.

     

    The whole business of ‘predicting’ the future is highly complex. It is hard enough even when working with very few variables and verified historical data. However, it’s another thing to use unreliable and homogenised and moderated data and to make speculative projections which are based on GCM modelling. In the case of climate, variables are constantly changing. Computer modelling can only make reasonably accurate predictions when using reliable data and there is very little variation in major inputs –this is not possible when predicting future weather trends as the climate of our planet is dynamic, indeed chaotic and unpredictable in the long term.

     

    No evidence for global warming

    The increase in extreme weather events is often cited as `proof’ of global warming. However such events have declined by over 20 percent over the past two decades. The decline in abnormal weather behaviour is well documented in Indur Goklany’s book, `The Improving state of the World.

    Despite the increasing levels of CO2 over the past two decades, data shows that global temperatures have gone sideways over the past 18 years, and not risen as predicted by computer modelling (GCM’s).

    CO2 is commonly labelled a `pollutant’. However, if you can see it or smell it then it’s not carbon dioxide as CO2 is colourless and odourless.  CO2 is essential for life on this planet. Life on this planet is not possible without it, so how can it be a `pollutant?’

     

    Greenhouse gases

    * Carbon dioxide is often presented as the major greenhouse gas (GHG). However water vapour is the major greenhouse gas as it makes up 97% of Green house gas’s.

    * Carbon dioxide – all sources – makes up only about 2-3% of greenhouse gases. Of the total carbon dioxide component, 96.5 percent of it is naturally occurring.

    * Mankind’s contribution is a tiny 3% of the 2%. Or to put it another way, carbon dioxide comprises a tiny 33 molecules of each 85,600 molecules in the atmosphere, and of that 33, man’s emissions only accounts for just 1 molecule!

     

    Ice Core samples

    Carbon levels do not drive temperature as so often erroneously presented in many popular climate documentaries and science magazines. Data from ice core samples show that temperatures rise some 600 to 800 years BEFORE carbon dioxide levels rise. Temperature drives CO2 levels.  Carbon dioxide levels do NOT drive temperature but rather follow rise and fall in line with atmospheric temperatures.

     

    Dr Ferenc Miskolczi

    Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian physicist has proposed a schema which explains why carbon dioxide cannot drive climate change.   There is a limit to the green-house effect, and once that limit has been reached (`the critical limit’), then adding further green-house gases does not make the planet any warmer. The Earth’s atmosphere dynamically keeps its greenhouse effect right at its critical value, regardless of our continuing CO2 emissions.

    Emitting CO2 into the air cannot increase the greenhouse factor because any impact of human addition of CO2 is dynamically countered by about 1% decrease of the main greenhouse gas, water vapour (moisture) in the atmosphere according to Miskolczi.

    Once CO2 levels rise about 50ppmv (currently it’s 400), its impact is logarithmic, or to put it another way, you would have to raise CO2 to extraordinary levels to get a slight increase in overall temperatures. To raise global temperature by 1C you would need to raise CO2 levels to over 600ppm. Even it mankind burnt all so called `fossil fuels’ tomorrow (which isn’t going to happen), the CO2 level would rise to 550ppm – which is far below the 1,000ppm of the dinosaur era.

     

    Annual Variation

    It also must be noted that the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere varies on an annual cycle. This variation is usually around five percent (370 to 390ppm in 2011). The total contribution of humanity to CO2 levels is below the natural variation of CO2 in the atmosphere.  So logically humanity’s CO2 emissions cannot be driving climate change.

    Governments need to get the science right first before taking action and trashing the economy and throwing thousands out of work. After all, that’s what the precautionary principle says to do.

     

    Re the comments of Ray Black. 

    Mount Pinatubo

    Ray has a point.  In my original letter to the Geelong Independent (Sept 2, 2010)  I repeated a claim  championed by Prof Ian Plimer at that time, that  “ Mt Pinaturbo “spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in it’s entire 6,000 years on earth.  Mt Pinaturbo was active for more over one year!”

    In hindsight I would have been better to have said “it is alleged that…” and I was talking about greenhouse gases and not just CO2.  These type of arguments are hard to quantify and are based on one’s personal assumptions and calculations.  I used the below data to help shape my conclusions.

    From Wikipedia; Mt Pinaturbo ejected roughly 10,000,000,000 tonnes (1.1×1010 short tons) or 10 km3 (2.4 cu mi) of magma, and 20,000,000 tonnes (22,000,000 short tons) SO2, bringing vast quantities of minerals and metals to the surface environment. It injected more particulate into the stratosphere than any eruption since Krakatoa in 1883.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

    Compare this with an estimated cumulative global total of 420 billion tonnes of CO2 were emitted between 2000 and 2011 due to human activities, including deforestation.  http://phys.org/news/2012-07-global-co2-emissions.html

     

    Global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased by 3% in 2011.  These are the main findings of the annual report ‘Trends in global CO2 emissions‘, ….. The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, …. of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide.

    http://phys.org/news/2012-07-global-co2-emissions.html

     

    The oceans contain over 70 times the amount of C02 in the atmosphere. It’s plain to see that based on the above figures, major eruptions like Mt Pinatubo, Mt St Helens, Krakatoa, and Eyjafjallajokull in 2010 in Iceland, emit huge amounts of greenhouse particulates into the atmosphere. Volcanic activity is ongoing with large eruptions happening every so often.

     

    Each year there are around 8,000 to 10,000 bushfires happening on the globe at any one given time spewing out some 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. According to the mis-named Skeptical Science website, (it’s championing global warming theory – NOT sceptical science, very misleading –if not dishonest); humanity’s annual contribution of 29 gigatons of CO2 – which is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year from natural sources. 
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

     

    Yet somehow mankind’s piddling C02 emissions are driving “dangerous climate change”.   Really?   Mankind’s 29GT is only 6.6% of the amount put into the atmosphere from bushfires each year!  I’m discounting volcanic activity completely too.  Even if humanity stopped completely all industrial activity, and all of humanity went and simply lived like the Amish in the USA, then it still wouldn’t make any significant impact on climate.

     

    The figures don’t add up.

    Prof Tim Flannery in Geelong for public meeting,  26 March 2011.

    If a Martian came down and observed the meeting, he would be right in concluding the arguments presented for action on climate change were not only strange, but the people pushing it were totally out of their tree.

     

    The science of global warming is weird.  It doesn’t make sense.  Prof Tim said even if every industry in the world closed down tomorrow, the effect on climate would take:

    “If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.”

    This to have a very slight impact on climate, maybe a drop of less than a quarter of one degree, barely measurable. 

    Oh, but it’s important to start now to address climate change because if we don’t the problem in 200 years plus time could be far worse.  Meanwhile our economy faces ruin and our standard of living degraded. Is this the price we have to pay? One can hardly call this progress; it’s in fact regression.

    Obviously industry is not going to close down tomorrow.  China, India and the rest of the world is going to continue to expand.  Any action we take as a nation is going to be totally futile and meaningless.  We are going to spend billions so that environmentalists can feel good about themselves, and for certain politicians and scientists to big note themselves on the world stage.

    Thanks again for the opportunity. Hopefully Pulse FM will see its way clear to have another conversation with a `second opinion’ so people will be aware that there is another valid scientific understanding of climate science and not be stampeded into accepting the consensus view which in my opinion, will NOT create a better world for our children or grandchildren, but will make life in the future much for difficult and uncertain – all for no gain to the environment.  Remember King Canute.

     

    Best wishes,

    Alan


Comments