Not since and other climate change questions

We greatly enjoyed the huge response to our article about climate change. It is clear that there is both a great deal of interest and a great deal of confusion about the science of climate change, write Doug Mackie, Hugh Doyle and Paul Young.

We have compiled some of the most common scientific claims taken from the 940 submissions made about the Emissions Trading Scheme and we invite comments and questions.

If this is successful we will add more claims later but for now we will only respond to comments that are on topic. We have excluded non-scientific claims (eg"It is all a hoax"), but can come back if there is interest.

Please click on the image above for a clear view of the graphic.
Please click on the image above for a clear view of the graphic.
Not since.
This was the topic of our last article and is the idea that "the slight warming that occurred between 1979 and 1998 has been followed by stasis and, since 2002, cooling."

To the right are the graphs we used to show this claim is invalid because such short time periods are weather, not climate.

2. Natural cycle.
This is the idea that climate varies naturally and that current variation is due to changes in a stated factor (such as solar output or El Nino). We agree climate varies naturally.

However, natural changes and human-induced changes are not exclusive.

Please click on the image above for a clear view of the graphic.
Please click on the image above for a clear view of the graphic.
The current change in atmospheric CO2 is superimposed over and above natural changes. Furthermore, the rate of current change is unprecedented for at least the last 8 "ice ages", further suggesting it is not natural. At the end of an ice age CO2 typically goes up by about 100 parts per million (ppm) over about 10,000-15,000 years (i.e. less than 0.01 ppm per year). Currently CO2 is increasing at more than 2 ppm per year. This is over 200 times faster than changes associated with the natural CO2 cycle.

3. Carbon cycle
We included this because it has increased hugely in popularity; 18th in 2008 to 12th in February 2009 to 4th place in October 2009. This claim states agricultural emissions are a closed cycle and do not require regulation because grass takes up CO2, cows eat grass and belch methane and then the methane is oxidised to CO2 and taken up by the grass.

However, this neglects the fact that methane is better at trapping heat than CO2 and until the methane is oxidised (about 8 years) it causes extra warming.

It is like saying because you borrowed $100,000 at 9% for 8 years and then earned 4% interest on $100,000 saved for 8 years that your finances are balanced.

Editor: ODT Online invites all those who have contributed to the debate thus far, and indeed any reader interested in climate change, to question the authors using the comment window below  These comments will be forwarded to the authors who will provide a response. The comments and their reponses will then be published. The cut-off date for comments is Monday, November 16.

 

Not since claim

Recently? Sally,  I have been on about this for a few years. For all your bluster you have yet to come up with a cogent argument to justify the "not since" claim. (Even farsighted says it is a rubbish argument).

Can you do this? I see you posted something similar over at Ian Wishart's blog. Nobody there seemed able to justify it either. Go ahead. I'm listening. Tell me why it is a valid argument.

And if it is not a valid argument, then (as I keep asking) why did you use it and what does it being invalid tell you about the "experts" like Bob Carter who continue to make this claim? Tinfoil hat people like to see "agendas" everywhere.

My agenda is to make people realise that even if ALL the data is fake (and it isn't) the "not since" analysis is, in my opinion, an incompetent lie. Me pointing out that it is a lie does not change the fact it is a lie. You have missed giving links to many of my other writings on this topic. Would you like me to post links to them for you?

As Alice would say

As Alice would say; "It just gets curiouser and curiouser." This whole Global Warming debate is hotting up, and the proponents are putting up the mattresses. It seems, in light of the CRU emails revelations that perhaps a lot of people should be going back to the drawing boards to rethink their positions. It is obvious that there is not the scientific consensus required to unequivocally confirm that an increase in atmospheric carbon will automatically result in catastrophic warming. In fact, there is a considerable body of scientific opinion that just as convincingly argues it is not so. To simply dismiss these opinions, or worse, endeavor to suppress them, suggests a level of desperation on the part of the UNIPCC. Pity it is so political, as it seems the world may be getting side tracked here when there are more immediate problems desperately needing the politicians' attentions. As I have said before, if we don't address the matters of fresh water, arable fertile land preservation, energy substitution for coal and oil (both finite) and population explosion, then global warming will be the least of our worries.

'Deniers'

The “Climategate” emails have exposed the campaign of prominent scientists Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf.

Dr Judith Curry has an excellent article on “A word about deniers” at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/the-curry-letter-a-word-about-deni... She writes “It’s a rhetorical tactic unworthy of anyone who wants their scientific credibility to remain above reproach. When the word “denier” first crawled out of the political slime, I fully expected those in science and media alike to reject it, vocally and without qualification. Instead, it has become mainstream.”

Here in New Zealand, Dr Doug Mackie recently took aim at “denialists” re their opinions on the AGW theory with his “not since” barrage. http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/79606/we-all-stand-lose-delaying-ac... (30/10/09). As part of that debate I eventually came to the conclusion that this was a deliberate strategy of Dr Mackie and wrote. “Strange that in the opinion piece you say, “OUR MAIN POINT is that outright deniers are a sideshow.” I believe this is what your piece was all about, the “not since” was a smoke screen - your mission was to discredit those who do not agree with you. (3/11/09) but was conveniently ignored.

My conclusion is backed up with these comments he has made on http://hot-topic.co.nz/fomenting-unhappy-mischief/ on the 14/10/09. “We need to disabuse politicians of the pernicious “fast follower” meme” “That is why I think it is useful to show up denialist lies as being lies. This removes the flimsy claim to credibility denialist politicians have for continued inaction.” His comments are even more enlightening with the revelation of the tactics revealed in the leaked CRU emails.