Academy of Science: how do we expect climate to evolve in the future?
|
This is an extract from The Science of Climate Change — Questions and Answers, published by the Australian Academy of Science and distributed to members of parliament, every local government authority in Australia and every Australian high school, in August 2010. Crikey will be running a series of extracts, including canvassing common myths. Climate models and studies of past climates indicate that global warming and associated changes will continue if greenhouse gas levels keep rising as they are now Basic physical principles tell us that rising levels of greenhouse gases will warm the Earth’s surface. To answer more complex questions, computer simulations, or models,
Models simulate reasonably well the broad features of the present climate and the 20th century warming. This, however, does not guarantee accurate predictions into the future; changes could be more rapid or more gradual than projected. Overall, there is good agreement between models and observations at global and continental scales, but simulations are less reliable at the local scale. Some properties of climate are better captured by models than others; for example, temperature is generally more accurately simulated than rainfall. Independent of climate models, another important way to estimate the implications of greenhouse gas increases is to examine how climate has responded to such increases in the While these two approaches – modelling and studying the past – rely on markedly different methodologies, they both yield broadly similar indications of where global climate is Evidence from Earth’s past indicates that changes of this magnitude can have major long-term ramifications, such as sea level rise of many metres. Continued increases in greenhouse gas levels are expected to lead to significant warming through the 21st century and beyond Continued “business as usual” reliance on fossil fuels is expected to lead to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels by about 2050, and possibly a tripling by about 2100. This emission pathway for CO2, coupled with rises in the other greenhouse gases, would be expected to produce a warming of around 4.5°C by 2100, but possibly as low as 3°C or as If society were to shift rapidly away from using fossil fuels, there would be little reduction in the rate of global warming in the first couple of decades, but warming later this century and beyond would be significantly reduced (see Figure 5.1).
Climate models and basic physical principles indicate that global warming will generally be accompanied by increases in global-average humidity; more extreme hot events such as heat waves but fewer cold extremes; further decreases in the extent and thickness of Arctic sea-ice; shifts in rainfall (generally an increase in the tropics and high latitude regions and a decrease in the subtropics); further ocean warming; melting of mountain glaciers and polar ice sheets; and rising sea levels. Most of these impacts have already been observed (see Question 3). Warming rates and other climate changes are not expected to be the same everywhere, due to changes in atmospheric circulation or other regional influences. Projections This is particularly the case for regional rainfall projections. Some models also project substantial changes to phenomena such as El Niño or dramatic changes to vegetation. Many aspects of climate change will likely remain difficult to foresee despite continuing modelling advances, leaving open the possibility of climate change “surprises”. Some climate change will continue for centuries, and some change will be essentially irreversible on a 1,000-year timescale. Stabilisation of climate requires stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations. However, the inertia of the climate system, particularly the oceans and the ice sheets, Even if human societies completely ceased greenhouse gas emissions at some time in the future, atmospheric temperatures would not be expected to fall significantly for a Global warming above some threshold, believed to lie between about 2°C and 4.5°C, would lead to an ongoing melting of the Greenland ice sheet. If sustained for thousands of years, this would virtually eliminate the ice sheet, raising sea level by about seven metres. Most of the Antarctic ice sheet, by contrast, is expected to remain too cold for widespread melting. It is possible that increased snowfall over Antarctica may partially offset other contributions to sea level rise. In addition, accelerated outflow of ice has been observed from Greenland and West Antarctica. This is poorly understood, but could make these ice sheets more vulnerable Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could significantly reduce long-term warming To have a better than even chance of preventing the global average temperature from eventually rising more than 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures, the world would need to be emitting less than half the amount of CO2 by 2050 than it did in 2000. To do this on a smooth pathway, global emissions (which are still rising) would need to peak within the next 10 years and the decline rapidly. The Australian Academy of Science, which represents Australia’s foremost scientists, provides scientific advice to policy makers and promotes excellence in Australian science, has devoted considerable resources to untangling the science of climate change and presenting it in a simple and easily understood format. The full report can be downloaded here for free. |
|
|
|
53 Comments
The Academny of Magic more like it. They have no idea! These are models. They are all total bollocks! Economists have models andlook where they got us!
As someone who has been involved in innocuous forms of mind control for most of his working life, I can tell when someone has taken a bait and you lot have definitely swallowed a whopper if you buy this.
Even the good old Washington Times thinks the gig is up and its time to all take a powder. In a recent editorial entitled: “Close the EPA - It’s time to stop funding carbon mysticism with taxpayer dollars” (March 3, 2011) the WT argues that the EPA “has become little more than an advocacy group for trendy leftist causes operating on the public’s dime.” And that many of the policies Democrats are promoting are so unpopular that they can’t muster the votes to get them through the proper legislative process.”
The EPA has revised the deadlines put on the last of American industry for reporting so called “greenhouse gas” production. A facility that manufactures paper, for example, would have to determine whether it “emits 25,000 metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent (CO2e)” per year. The agency guesses that this covers about 10,000 businesses which would then be forced to measure their carbon-dioxide output, maintain detailed records and submit reports to EPA busybodies.
You don’t have to be an Einstein to figure out where all of these businesses are heading. Anywhere that doesn’t have this crap going on..i.e. overseas and that is what wull happen here at 100 mph if this nonsense is introduced.
I hate pollution but you are not going to get rid of fossil fuels anytime soon. Besides there is no peak oil. America has four major capped basins including a massive find under Montana-North Dakota and the stupendous Prudhoe Bay wells in Alaska plus two others which are all capped and which also are huge. They just decided to use up everybody elses first before they bring them on stream at $200 a barrell.. Russia’s got heaps and Indonesia also has a massive capped basin as was reported about three years ago in their local rags.
When it comes on stream, it will bring Indonesia into the first world in the next 2o years.
Hey don’t believe me if you don’t want to! But don’t believe the rubbish being peddled at the moment either.
As for climate change - it is happening at a very mild pace but any day now I feel a black swan moment threatening.
Oh look, someone’s off their meds today.
Oh the Washington Times. Isn’t that printed in Fyshwick?
Just a few weeks ago, Garnaut was quoted on this blog as saying “Recent data and events have confirmed that the IPCC report, if anything, underestimated the climate change impacts on global temperatures, sea level rises, and the intensification of weather events. He says climate sceptics cannot draw any strength from the “real science” of the past five years. “I wish that were not so.”
Yet what does his report put in writing?
“global temperatures continue to rise around the midpoints of the range of the projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the presence of a warming trend has been confirmed.”
So 3 weeks ago the IPCC underestimated global temps, and today its “around the midpoints”.
He misleads that temps continue to rise, as global temp cooled this decade.
Pathetic.
“global temp cooled this decade”…ah, the Prof. Andrew Bolt thesis, done by nicely extrapolating the IQ of his readers.
More astroturf fodder.
no chrissy, it’s just what the data says. I have posted the data many times on crikey but you are all still in denial.
where is that accelerated, out of control, unprecedented warming now?
here is the ipcc dataset fodder
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2011/trend
I find climate change alarmists just as offensive as climate change deniers, surely scepticism is the sensible approach at this time.
I find it very difficult to find ANY dispassionate analysis of claims or counter-claims from either side of the debate. The articles on Crikey over the past few days are just total, unsupported, propaganda from the alarmist side of the debate
Opinions about science aren’t science.
They are just ‘opinions’, and you know what they say about those…yeah, everyone’s got one.
…….meanwhile the hopes for successful adaptation to changing climate patterns (whether anthropogenically induced or otherwise) recedes as the attention and resources are squandered on over-intelligent idiots arguing about causation, measurement, amelioration and the politics of it all.
Well Scott, causation is kind of important, so that you know what you are adapting to. Otherwise it’s a waste of a lot of resources and intellect - that’s not very green and sustainable.
TONES9, good of you to supply the Woodfortrees site and you are correct to observe that in that particular chosen decade there is a downward trend. I don’t suppose you tried out any of the other options because it would be best for your argument to stick with lies, damned lies or otherwise, those carefully chosen statistics.
Anyone with an ounce of nous would be interested in long term trends - as long as possible most likely. Change the data set on that woodfortrees graph (as anyone can do, just put the numbers in and press ‘go’) - choosing say, the trend over 40 years from 1971 to 2011 - and you get a completely different picture of the long term trend. Not a pretty one either.
Anyway, you go for Garnaut’s jugular. He’s a big boy and I’m sure he can handle the pressure. But what do you make of the long term trend in the statistics which you yourself are using? Does it mean anything at all?
Hugh, that particular decade is the one the Academy of Science says warmed, and Garnaut implies is worse than IPCC projections.
It’s not a lie. It’s not carefully chosen. It is the decade which the Academy refers to, and the only decade of IPCC projections.
If garnaut was honest, he would say that in the 2 yrs since his report, global temp has fallen.
No one is saying there isn’t a long term warming trend. The question is, is it accelerating at the rate projected by the IPCC due to AGW, and accepted as fact by the Academy and Garnaut?
The answer is no.
You have to laugh at Gillard.
She imposed a FLOOD TAX and the report says part if the cause of the floods (ie river rising 10 metres) was because they released water from the dam!!!
Wivenhoe Dam release caused Brisbane flood: report
MARISSA CALLIGEROS
11 Mar, 2011 12:45 PM
Releases from Wivenhoe Dam raised water levels in the Brisbane River by up to 10 metres during January’s flood, a panel of independent hydrologists has found.
The hydrology report, commissioned by the Insurance Council of Australia and published yesterday, ruled the Brisbane flood to be a “dam release flood”.
It named the release of water from Wivenhoe Dam as being the “principal immediate cause” of the riverine flood, as rain ceased about 6pm on January 11, more than 24 hours before the Brisbane River peaked overnight on January 12-13.
The council commissioned the report, carried out by hydrologists from WorleyParsons, WRM and Water Matters International, on behalf of insurance companies for use in conjunction with their own hydrology assessments and local condition reports in processing claims.
Although the report acknowledges that flood waters from the Lockyer Creek and Bremer River contributed to the Brisbane flood, the hydrologists found the releases from Wivenhoe Dam created the primary “floodwave”.
“As this floodwave moved downstream, backwater flooding occurred along the lower reaches of all tributaries through the Brisbane City Local Government Area,” the report says.
The floodwave, according to the report, resulted in “backflow” in the piped drainage system, causing storm water drains to overflow in low-lying areas.
Although the hydrology report was completed before Wivenhoe Dam operator Seqwater this week published a log of the releases from the dam, the panel unequivocally linked the dam release to the flooding.
“It is clear that the dam release flood from Wivenhoe Dam was the immediate cause of flooding,” the report says.
“Flood events in lower Lockyer Creek, in the lower Bremer River and in the lower Brisbane River were dwarfed by the subsequent water level rise associated with releases from Wivenhoe Dam [between January 11 and January 12]
“The water level rise associated with the above dam releases increased water levels in the lower Lockyer Creek at O’Reilly’s Weir by over five metres, in the lower Bremer River at One Mile Bridge by over seven metres, and in the Brisbane River at Savages Crossing and Mt Crosby by seven metres and 10 metres respectively.”
TONES9, yes all those things. No, I didn’t mean that you told lies.
But what do you make of this climate change thing? The thing that you can see in the graphs over an extended period. The sea levels that still keep rising. The atmospheric CO2 which just won’t go away. Do you think it means anything at all, that Garnaut is onto something, that there is a problem out there which we should be aware of? Or is this just a big yawn, a bunch of crap and a pseudo-scientific beat up designed to outwit the masses and cheat us of our future? When you look at trees do you see wood or forest?
Hugh, sea level has been rising at 1.9mm over the past 5 years, down from 3.4mm.
Global sea surface temp has cooled this decade.
You accept that garnaut has lied about the climate, but you want to take his advice on what to do about it?
The forest I see has changed naturally over thousands of years. Nothing about it is extraordinary or beyond natural variation.
Wanna know why I am a sceptic?
I believe that the climate change scare is purely a tool to create a scarcity in energy in the Western world. That scarcity unlike diamonds won’t be artificial. Nor will it be artificial as was the case in California in the days of Enron. That model is too risky. In fact Ken Lay went to gaol over it. Ken Lay, a political insider made one big mistake. In an effort to send prices through the roof, he had to manufacture scarcity. He didn’t have the government legislation in place at that time to protect him and his company nor a strong enough rationale. Well all that has changed now. The bad guys have learned their lesson. This time there will be no fraud attached to an artificial scarcity, because you get the government to enact legislation that will ensure a real scarcity.
If these guys are allowed to get away with this, the will be real price hikes in energy brought about by a real scarcity. How do I know this…well you only have to watch or read the congressional hearings from ten years back involving some of these crooks. Ken Lay from Enron (the guy who went to jail for fraud) together with some bankers and others prominent in the climate change movement, wrote the cap and trade scheme in the mid nineties as a means of raising energy prices and removing competition. This is exactly the same program to which Western governments (not their people) seem so committed.
The idea is simple and elegant. Under the guise of saving the planet, you create a scarcity by forcing a shut down of dirty and marginally dirty power and fuel plants while at the same time legislating c lean energy. You then run a carbon trading scheme of some type. The Enron guys along with the bankers went for cap and trade. These tactics will enable suppliers (especially monopoly suppliers), to raise the price of energy to whatever the market can bear. In the process, you have your government buddies legislating to make sure your competitors don’t have the same advantages. Sound familiar. It’s not hard if you own the Congress, the Senate and have the judges in your back pocket. On the way through, you nobble all of your external competition with the help of government rents and legislation which favours you and your insider buddies. And then bingo - the price of energy goes stratospheric and the mugs in the street think it is all about saving the bears.
It is not all about saving anything – it is all about more for these insiders and less for everybody else. It is a scam. It is a fix. Those who stand to make $billions/trillions have been working on it since the early nineties but to the public’s credit, even with the help of the controlled media, they are having a hard time convincing some that it is a good deal.
I’m not sure that the de facto Australian Govt and others are anything more than dupes in this tragicomedy, but you can bet when the current bunch of politicians are long gone, those who made the billions will still be around cooking up some new scheme to skin us alive.
@ Tones9 and @ Richard Wilson
Both of you, well said. This is the Y2K bug all over again. A lot of consultants and software companies etc made a mint, now a whole new breed of people / companies and organisations are making a mint with climate change.
Oh dear! A bunch of ninnies appear to have left their brains outside the gate before wandering in.
Thanks, Crikey, for presenting serious, well educated researchers’ opinions on this important subject. Given sufficient time and exposure to the facts, and as an optimist, I still hope that the risk management approach will take hold big time, very soon. By my guess, the bet is a 99-to-1 wager. So, it is sad to see that many vocal, opinionated, self-appointed experts are actually prepared to bet on the “1” instead of listening to the “99”.
Gamblers all, but risking the collective futures of the whole biosphere.
John, if you were an optimist, the future would not be a 99% vision of climate catastrophe.
Join us with 100% nature. It’s beautiful and real.
TONES9, I don’t suppose you have seen the forest at Tuvalu but when you read the words of that bloke who lives there did you think nothing about it was extraordinary or beyond natural variation?
Hugh, if you are referring to the sob story in Crikey, the only scientific evidence cited says “the rate of sea level rise in the Tuvalu region was not accelerating as anticipated by the community.”
I look at real evidence which shows sea level rise is not affecting Tuvalu at all.
Tuvalu has been affected by the deliberate destruction of a coral reef for a port, subsidence, and the depletion of groundwater for farming uses.
However property prices have not been affected.
Hugh
Give it a break. How can any serious scientist take that sort of article on Tuvalu seriously.
Charles Darwin had it right when he outlined what was happening to these small pacific islands and more recently a high profile IPCC contributor has backed him up.
Volcanic activity as in heating and cooling or expansion and contraction of the island base controls where water level sits. The oceans are not manically rising out of control.
In a number of cases of claimed rising water levels it has been shown that the locals have damaged the fragile coralline environment through greed. We cant be held accountable for that.
Nils Axel Morner has dissociated himself from his former collaborator, IPCC, and regrets their current politically motivated push to link fragile coral environments with CO2. Scientifically it doesn’t wash.
You can’t just treat CO2 as if it’s the only gas in the system.
It is a complex interactive system and the reason Global Warming Protagonists wont discuss this is because it involves “real” science, not climate change science.
Besides, heat from the sun liberates CO2 held in the ocean. This is an effect which swamps the “agw” effect.
To top it all off, the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour, against which effect CO2 is insignificant and man made CO2 effect barely noticeable within the error limits..
Joke
If Carbon pollution is CO2 then what is Hydrogen pollution.
Yes, RAIN.
If either was missing from our lives we would not be here. Both are life essentials.
There is no need for any more debate.
The IPCC argument all hinges on fanciful science like the supposed runaway CO2 effect which is unknown to mainstream science.
There is no such thing as “amplification” or “feedback” effect of CO2.
This is a political / financial construct which has been used to deliberately confuse the public so can’t understand it and have to rely on accounting experts like Mr Garnaut.
More money for those in the right places.
Holidays in Tahiti.
TONES9, which particular piece of “real evidence” shows you this stuff about Tuvalu? Come on, name the publication and the author.
I’m getting mighty sick of reading the same astroturfing bullsh*t over and over again from tones9, danr and richard wilson.
Guys, if you have any meaningful commentary to add beyond your usual claptrap feel free.
Please try to make it relevant to the topic instead of just another opportunity to publish your oil industry funded propoganda sound bites.
So three anonymous internet entities who may or may not be seperate, and may or may not be real people, decry the AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE as having no scientific credentials.
Riiiiiiight.
The great luminaries of Australian Global Warming are:
an accountant/economist and mining company executive, a plant biologist, with no training in the area under examination together with executives of the Green Movement and various assorted politicians.
Hardly a bunch of competent scientists.
The seas are not rising around the Maldives. Ref Nils Axel Morner; former IPCC member.
This man IS THE leading world authority on ocean levels.
I’m in agreement with Richard. The same power push who have made money out of Carbon trading need a new milk cow.
Previously they and their friends made piles of cash out of supplying war materials to the US military machine.
Now they are using a new vehicle to raise cash: saving the PLANET.
If Carbon pollution is CO2 then what is Hydrogen pollution.
Yes, RAIN.
If either was missing from our lives we would not be here. Both are life essentials.
I’m sorry Captain Planet.
I didn’t mean to offend you.
I’ll go away and be quiet now.
With your permission please?
Tones9 is here.
Aren’t we supposed to be one and the same person?
I found the President Bob Brown email from Friday. Raising money for the Climate Change Push Poll.
Help stop the fear campaign
Dear friend,
We are at a critical moment in climate action in Australia and we need your help to stand up to Tony Abbott’s fear and misinformation campaign.
Just as the Greens and the government have been making real progress towards putting a price tag on pollution, the scare campaign is dominating the national airwaves. Anti-climate rallies are being organised in Melbourne and Canberra, supported by talkback radio shock jocks.
One great way to counter a fear campaign is to show supporters of climate action that they are not alone. So we spoke to a respected polling company and we can secure properly designed and fair questions in their regular omnibus poll about placing a price on pollution and investing in clean energy if we can raise $10,000 by Monday*.
Can you give $25 right now to help give our supporters the facts?
It will be a national poll of Australians aged 18 years and over, including both capital city and non-capital city areas.
We will share the polling results with you and all of our supporters and we’ll be in touch soon with the next steps in the campaign to put a price on pollution.
Can you help stand up to the fear campaign by donating $25 right now?
Thank you,
Bob Brown
P.S. Don’t let the fear campaign stop climate action, please donate today.
*If we exceed our goal, additional funds raised will be directed to climate change campaigning
Captain Planet, Hugh, Christopher Dunne, et al
I can understand why you get sick of the astroturfers continually throwing out crap/white noise whilst belittling those scientists who present painstaking research to back their claims. For example those wild claims above re sea levels used the work of “… man IS THE leading world authority on ocean levels.” A quick search revealed his true qualifications :-
— quote —
So who is Nils-Axel Mörner, and how is he able to see these things that every other scientist in the world can’t?
Well, in addition to his activities “debunking” climate change, Mörner is also an enthusiast of dowsing and water witching.
And he has some very weird ideas about archaeology. See here, here, here, and here.
And he is associated with fringe wacko/antisemite/conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche. Here’s an interview (PDF) he did with the LaRouche publication Executive Intelligence Review.
And he is an “allied expert” with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a group that is controlled by energy industry lobbyists.
Verdict: there may be credible scientists raising valid objections to anthropogenic climate change theory, but Nils-Axel Mörner is not one of them. He’s a raving kook.
— quote —
Ahh, you gotta love a group of “intellectuals” that back their arguments with the work of some third rate wack job.
“scientists who present painstaking research to back their claims”
Hadley CRU.
IPCC
UNSW
HA de ha ha ha
In other areas of science we dont call that research.
It’s known as “Meta Analysis”.
aka rehashing someone elses work and adding a few magical steps of your own.
Nils-Axel Mörner
A great and respected scientist.
He had the guts to leave the IPCC behind.
So DANR, no explanation for using the work of a “wack job” to back your baseless assertions so simply revert to type and throw unsubstantiated mud elsewhere. Sorry, no score, next shill up to the block.
Not so respected
— quote —
And it gets worse; in 2004 Mörner misrepresented his professional position in a presentation to the Russian Academy of Sciences:
Dear Dr. Osipov:
It has come to my attention that Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner gave presentations at the seminar on climate change organized by the Russian Academy of Sciences at the request of President Vladimir Putin earlier this month. Dr. Mörner attacked the science of climate change, while claiming that he is President of the Commission on Sea Level Change of INQUA.
I am writing to inform you that Dr. Mörner has misrepresented his position with INQUA. Dr. Mörner was President of the Commission on Sea Level Change until July 2003, but the commission was terminated at that time during a reorganization of the commission structure of INQUA. Dr. Mörner currently has no formal position in INQUA, and I am distressed that he continues to represent himself in his former capacity. Further, INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to Mörner’s position on climate change. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view.
Sincerely,
John J. Clague
President, INQUA
— quote —
“Dr. Mörner was President of the Commission on Sea Level Change until July 2003”
A falling out??
Why was he so competent in 2001 and not in 2004??
Funding issues??
John J. Clague
NO qualifications that would say he is capable of even imagining the complexity of earths biosphere let alone quantifying what goes on with CO2.
Because his work was fundamentally flawed for reasons best known to him, but certainly not funding
— quote —
In 2007, other scientists took Mörner’s claims and cut them to pieces.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.08.002
Global and Planetary Change
Volume 55, Issue 4, February 2007, Pages 358-360
R.S. Nerema, b, , , A. Cazenavec, D.P. Chambersd, L.L. Fue, E.W. Leuliettea and G.T. Mitchumf
We feel compelled to respond to the recent article by Mörner (2004) because he makes several major errors in his analysis, and as a result completely misinterprets the record of sea level change from the TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) satellite altimeter mission. One major criticism we have with the paper is that Mörner does not include a single reference to any altimeter study, all of which refute his claim that there is no apparent change in global mean sea level (GMSL) [see Cazenave and Nerem, (2004) for a summary].
— quote —
and even more damning for him, and by association you,
— quote —
Even more damning, Mörner promotes the pseudoscience known as water dowsing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner
Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. [2] He was elected “Deceiver of the year” by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for “organizing university courses about dowsing…”[2]. In 1997 James Randi asked him to claim The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing works.[12] Mörner declined the offer.[13]
This man is not a true scientist, if he ever was. He is a fraud!
— quote —
Always look for the truth.
Here it is:
INQUA CHARTER
“Quaternary scientists study the complex environmental changes of the glacial ages and interpret them using analogies to present-day processes and environments. A major goal of these investigations is to document the pattern and timing of climatic changes in order to understand the causes of changing climate on various time scales. Such investigations are of prime importance: the Earth, influenced by human activities, is entering a time of unusually warm climate in which significant and potentially rapid environmental changes could pose major challenges for human habitability.”
Yes the truth.
Outwardly a group of geologists.
The charter shows it to be a “Climate Change Focused Organisation.
Well I’ll be doggone.
In particular no self respecting scientist would want to be associated with this sort of unscientific, but profitable, rubbish:
“influenced by human activities, is entering a time of unusually warm climate “
in geological terms it has never been colder.
He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission
on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution,
How come he got away with it for 5 years??
What put him in the dog house?
It’s official
“Ross Garnaut, as “on the Government’s payroll”
so says Nick Minchin.
What, “in geological terms it has never been colder”, to quote John McEnroe, “you can’t be serious”. Where are the great European Ice sheets? Why isn’t USA frozen down to Mexico. Surely just a slip of a demented mind.
I’m thinking in geological terms..
60,000,000 years
You’re asking me how he got the job, I freely admit I don’t know. How did he lose the job, no problems there, because he was an embarrassing wack job that couldn’t do the science. Its that easy. And quoting Nick Minchin, in such a fashion, reveals so much about you, I couldn’t even begin.
And of course the previous warming periods more recently.
The holocene max (1 C degree hotter 6,000 years ago) and the med warm period.
marduk, thanks for enlightenig me about how to do research.
I believe everything in your quote. Now I know you don’t have to look at someone’s qualifications, academic position, or quality of their science. We just cut and paste smears. It was easy to find in the bastion of honesty at Little Green Footballs.
“weird ideas about archaeology” links. One doesn’t mention Morner, one mentions a reprimand put provides no evidence. At worst he has done some amateur archaeology in retirement. How weird.
he gave an interview to a magazine. Now that’s evil.
He’s an expert for a group - no evidence provided - which is run by evil people who are also oil lobbyists. Does that mean all oil climate institutes which receive oil money are also evil?
Morner misrepresented his position - no evidence provided. All I could find from that seminar was a report with this “{Prof Nils-Axel Morner, Stockholm University}.
Someone is a raving kook, but I don’t think it’s Morner.
I’m puzzled.
Garnaut is an accountant who sprouts on Global Warming.
We have Tim the plant biologist who sprouts on Global Warming.
Both would appear to be little under equipped to know the truth.
Perhaps something else besides science is at work here.
politics - money perhaps.
danr, I don’t think Tim’s in plant biology but if he looks that way then you too “…would appear to be little under equipped to know the truth.” Two degrees not enough?
Excerpt from the paper concerned below — pointing out that the raw data on sea levels shows that they have in fact been flat. It is only the addition of various “corrections” — some of which are quite arbitrary — that suggests rising sea levels.
Comment on comment by Nerem et al. (2007) on “Estimating future sea level changes from past records”
by Nils-Axel Moerner
First let us clear up the origin of my Fig. 2 (in Moerner, 2004). It is a product of the CLS Company printed in MEDIAS (2000, Fig. 1.2; also available on the net at Aviso, 2000). My curve was a redrawing of this graph. This curve, spanning the time from October 1992 to April 2000, does not record any sea level rise; only a variability plus one (or more) ENSO signals.
That was the point of my picture. It should be noted that this graph includes the technical adjustments (including the drift factor of Mitchum, 2000, Fig. 10) illustrated by the lower arrow in Fig. 1. Later the same graph re-appears with a strong tilt (Aviso, 2003; cf. Leuliette et al., 2004; Moerner, 2005). Why is that?
It is because of the introduction of additional calibrations (Mitchum, 2000; Leuliette et al., 2004; Cazenave & Nerem, 2004) - and those “calibrations” are subjective interpretations (Fig. 1; upper arrow); not objective readings. Consequently, they are opinion-dependent. “We adopt the rate given by Douglas (1991,1995) of 1.8~0.1mm/yr”, Mitchum (2000) states. This rate, however, is widely debated and far from generally accepted. Especially not in the geological sea level community (cf. Moerner, 2004, Fig. 4), where we realize that the tide gauges quite frequently are installed in unstable local position, and I quote (from Moerner et al., 2004): “Tide gauge records, however, do not provide simple and straight-forward measures of regional eustatic sea level. They are often (not to say usually) dominated by the effects of local compaction and local loading subsidence.
With this perspective, our multiple morphological and sedimentological records appear more reliable and conclusive” (cf. Moerner, 2007). This makes the requited “correction” for land motion at the tide gauge very delicate and subjective. The nice and interesting thing with the graph under discussion (Moerner, 2004, Fig. 2) is that it represents the readings before all these interpretational “corrections”.
Misused data! Satellite altimetry 1993-2000 was horizontal - the same data set + 2000-2003 was tilted. On top of the physical corrections (giving horizontallity) they added “personal correction” to fit IPCCs claims. What do we call this? If not falsification? See my scientific papers - best: Global and Planetary Change 62 (2008) 219-220.
How can people say that man made global warming is not real when governments have spent billions worldwide to research the problem.
There are thousands of PHDs who know that AGW is very real and will lead to runaway global temperatures far too soon for us and our children.
As one blogger says, “Australia has the worst pollution record in the developed world” and we must take action now.
Surely. People cant be serious when they questions the ABC.
The ABC is a Government funded institution and has the benefit of all Government scientific resources at its disposal in addition to a fine moderator in Tony Jones.
If it pushes a certain view it is because it must be so confident of it’s position that there is no need to be impartial.
It’s just more convenient that way.
Morner’s claim is based entirely on his own personal and very special measuring technique that involves ignoring satellites, tide gauges, and all other scientists, but does allow him to tilt graphs. Be warned, criticising his personal and very special technique may incite him to write to the papers claiming that the IPCC is suppressing him.