Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche


A Timeline of Earth’s Average Temperature …

*Pic: Flickr, David Blackwell: ‘Walking home one evening in 2074 Paul wondered about the scientific breakthrough reversing the effects of climate change and its impact on his beach condo investment’ …

Since the last Ice Age glaciation

When people say ‘the climate has changed before’, these are the kinds of changes they are talking about …



• Kim Peart in Comments: … The sun of denial is setting now, as evidence melds into experience with fierce wildfires and the melting of the Arctic ice. In time, denial will vanish completely, but by then, our plight will be dark. I have been concerned for years now about a deeper level of denial, where the science is accepted, but the action needed is minimised for personal and political consumption. This is a far more dangerous form of denial, because it looks like a willingness to act, but allows the problem to grow and ultimately, contributes to the pending death of the Earth …

Low winter sea ice coverage around Antarctica There has been a noticeable reduction in winter sea-ice coverage around Antarctica in recent weeks, with sea ice extent starting its annual retreat early and setting new daily record lows for much of the past week. The result comes two years after winter sea ice extent around Antarctica reached a new record high in September 2014, when it exceeded 20 million square kilometres for the first time since satellite measurements began in 1979 …

Daily Mail: Earth is warmer that it has been in 120,000 years – and is ‘locked in’ to hit its hottest mark in more than 2 million years, study claims



  1. Ted Mead

    September 17, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    I’m convinced that humans will do very little about addressing climate change and atmospheric issues until another 15+ years.

    By that time sustainable life on earth will be committed to a scenario of crisis unless there is broad-scale volcanic occurrences that can cool the earth as there was in the mid 16th century.

    Humans have always lacked the ability to foresee their destiny and continue to live in an ephemeral world for the here now by reaping what you can, while you can.

    Nobody can accurately predict what will happen this century, but the current prognosis looks grim for all forms of life on earth.

  2. Isla MacGregor

    September 17, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    [i]Compromise[/i] – a very dirty word.

  3. Chris

    September 17, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    100 +

  4. Simon Warriner

    September 17, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    Best we learn how to fight fires………..

    The TFS will certainly have no problem waiting for them to get big enough to fight properly.

  5. Chris Sharples

    September 17, 2016 at 1:54 pm

    Excellent graphic!

    I’ve always been particularly amazed by those people – including geologists who ought to know better – who say words to the effect of “The climate has changed before, we’re still here now, so whats the problem?”.

    The problem being of course that if humans had actually had to live through some of those past climatic changes, we would have found conditions extremely nasty indeed.

    About the worst climatic conditions we (as the species homo sapiens) have endured so far were the conditions of the Last Glacial phase, which were severe but survivable, and indeed were the climatic challenge that arguably propelled the “great leap forward” in human consciousness and technical skills that allowed us to survive then, and which constitute what we now call the Upper Palaeolithic phase of human cultural development.

    However if we look further back in time the geological record provides evidence of climatic phases that would have been very nasty indeed to live through, had we indeed survived at all. These include several hot periods earlier in the Tertiary period that I don’t think we would have enjoyed very much at all. Fortunately at those times there were no homo sapiens around, and our pre-hominid ancestors – with probably greater environmental tolerances than we possess – just survived as you do in conditions we would have found at best miserable and at worst unbearable.

    It would be very interesting to hear those who think climate change isn’t a problem because it has happened before explain how we will manage if global average temperatures reach more than 4 degrees Celsius above present temperatures. But of course they wont explain that because their silly argument is just a cover for the fact they have no grasp of what climate change means at all.

  6. Keith Antonysen

    September 17, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Ted @1

    I certainly hope that you are wrong about the time it takes to begin properly addressing atmospheric issues.

    The diminishing volume of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, being one of the reasons. In 1979 the volume of sea ice was 16,900 km3; whereas, for 2015 it was 5,700 km3, the volume for 2016 is highly likely to be lower. The trend line fluctuates somewhat; but, the trend has been constantly going down. It is not known what tipping points will be reached with diminishing sea ice volume.

    A slightly different matter; when sea ice extent is taken into account, normally only maximum and minimum sea ice extents are officially provided. When the maximum and minimum sea ice extent levels are computed together, 2016 provides the lowest ever recorded value.

    Much multi year ice has been lost, multi year sea ice providing stability. In 2016 two ice breakers have steamed right up to the North Pole.

    As a result, should the trend of volume loss continue within a decade plus/minus the Arctic Ocean will be ice free.

    An open Arctic Ocean will create much damage to the climate, the Arctic and Antarctic snow and ice have a moderating effect on temperature.

  7. Nicholas Gilbert

    September 17, 2016 at 5:33 pm

    Great graphic since it shows that the biggest problem is not just climate change per se but the RATE Of CHANGE which is causing mass extinction since species cannot adapt quickly enough

  8. john hayward

    September 17, 2016 at 9:57 pm

    Jon’s graph shows not just the rate of climate change, but also proof of a cartoon opossum’s theory that “we have seen the enemy, and he is us”.

    The culpability of our recent pollies’ conduct on this is immeasurable.

    John Hayward

  9. Rod

    September 17, 2016 at 9:59 pm

    I saw this on facebook and I couldn’t believe that they’re recycling this rubbish. It’s just a vertical version of the now thoroughly discredited Mann hockey stick and bears no resemblance to climate history. It gives climate science a bad name.

  10. phill Parsons

    September 18, 2016 at 11:30 am

    Where are the usual suspects of denial?.

  11. Kim Peart

    September 18, 2016 at 11:37 am

    Agree Nicholas @ 7 ~ The speed of change is a huge problem, with evolution unable to keep pace, and Nature less able to maintain our planet’s life-support systems.

    Disagree Ted @ 1 ~ There are examples from Mediaeval Japan and Europe when environmental action avoided catastrophe. We also have the modern case of global action on the ozone layer.

    Volcanic activity may only buy time, but will not change what is happening in the sea, with growing dead zones and increasing levels of acidity, threatening the foundations of life on Earth. Some scientists talk of a repeat of the Great Dying of 252 million years ago, when most of life on Earth perished.

    There is also the detail that Our Sun is now 35% hotter than at its birth 4.5 billion years ago and is steadily increasing in heat. The Sun will continue to get hotter over the next 5 billion years, until expanding to the orbit of the Earth as a red giant star. The Earth system has been able to maintain a temperature suitable for life and delivered paradise for the emergence of human civilization. One day the Earth will become a second Venus, with the loss of all water on a hot rock with CO2 for air.

    Lovelock warns us that fiddling with the Earth’s temperature dials will bring on a premature and swift shift to a permanently hotter planet, with the loss of billions of lives (The Disappearing Face of Gaia, 2009).

    As war has often followed environmental catastrophe, our fate may lie in a nuclear winter. An evolutionary dead-end.

    James Hansen gets darker, seeing an early plunge all the way to second Venus, if we will not get CO2 in the air below 350 ppm, which would keep temperature rise below 1.5C (Storms of My Grandchildren, 2009). With atmospheric CO2 now passing 400 ppm and no end in sight to its rise, we have long passed the tipping point of planet stability. That was in the 1980s, when CO2 in the air passed 350 ppm.

    In the 1980s I began wondering about the prospects for human survival, and what we could do.

    In the 1990s I began wondering about the role of Nature in human evolution, and why we could cause harm to Nature. I present a suggestion in this document ~

    What Does Nature Want?

    Should anyone be interested in what we can do for our survival and winning back a safe Earth, please contact me. There is much an individual can do, and ten individuals sharing a vision could change the political dynamic on Earth. The tools are now available to do this, for any keen individual. If ten million keen individuals share a vision for survival and act, there is hope.

    The key problem is how we get CO2 below 350 ppm and how soon this can happen. At the same time we need to design survival strategies.

    If I am right about Nature, and if we get in line with natural law, we stand a chance.

    I see our current strife as resulting from resisting Nature and avoiding critical action.

    Identifying critical action is half the game. The other half is acting on an identified solution.

    We need to build a bridge from the problem to the solution.

    Is it time to get serious yet?

    Kim Peart

  12. Ted Mead

    September 18, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Kim – I agree the rehabilitation of the Ozone layer as a result of an effective ban on hydrofluorocarbons was a significant statement.

    The noticeable difference was that this flurocarbon usage was easily replaced by innocuous substances, so the same rule should apply to moving away from fossil fuels to renewables.

    The big difference is that many countries like Australia have placed their faith in fossil fuels being the great economic driver for wealth and employment.

    Coal and gas corporations have control of the puppet strings of our minion politicians. It’s the mass public who have to make the change here by abandoning fossil fuel energy relying sources.

    That in my view is still a long way off.

  13. Keith Antonysen

    September 18, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    No 9, Rod

    Lets get to the very basics, if unable to find any examples of experiments supporting your view; then, why maintain a pseudo science stance?

    Mythbusters have put out an experiment on greenhouse gases and reaction to light.

    Another experiment showing atmospheric forcing is:


    Please provide an experiment that supports your view.

    Verbiage doesn’t count as an answer.

  14. Kim Peart

    September 18, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    Re: 12 ~ Ted ~ I’m wondering ~ Do you agree with the position of James Hansen to have atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm, to avoid a temperature rise above 1.5C?

    The nations agreed to the need for a 1.5C temperature rise limit in Paris last December, but there has hardly been a wing on how to get there.

    If 350 ppm is accepted, that is a tipping point that was passed in the 1980s, which now puts us three decades into the hell on Earth zone.

    If our predicament is that serious, then the working solution needs to also be that serious.

  15. Chris Sharples

    September 18, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    #9 No Rod, its much more accurate to say that the hoary old denier myth that the “hockey stick” has been discredited has itself been thoroughly discredited by the wealth of ongoing studies that have extended and confirmed Mann’s original work. See for example: MARCOTT, S.A, SHAKUN, J.D., CLARK, P.U. & MIX, A.C., 2013: A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years; Science, Vol. 339, p. 1198-1201, DOI: 10.1126/science.1228026

  16. Jon Sumby

    September 18, 2016 at 6:44 pm

    #9, Rod, the ‘hockey stick’ has survived a decade of oil and coal industry funded attacks. It is validated, both by more than two dozen independent research papers and by several reviews; including one by the US National Research Council.

    It is good science and it has been validated by other research.

    The only way you could say it is ‘rubbish’ is if you are reading denier websites that are spouting decade old oil and coal industry propaganda.

    For a primer on the topic, try:


  17. Ted Mead

    September 18, 2016 at 8:26 pm

    #14 – Kim – yes I do believe that we have gone beyond the threshold of getting back to a 350ppm level.

    However there is always the hope and belief that nature will prevail dominant over the human species, and in the meantime more drastic changes and loss of species on Earth will continue.

    I mentioned before that a massive volcanic eruption era may change that. The one in the mid 1550’s continued for only 2 years, and its effects only last for a short period. What we need is something on a similar scale over a longer duration of a decade or more I suspect.

    Yes our predicament is serious, and there are many taking a serious approach. But until the urgent tack that is needed is adopted by the corporate world and conservative political powers, then the lag time of change will be outweighed by the economics of continuing down the same myopic path.

    The changes have to come from consumer pressure.

    Nothing will change until corporate economics are driven by future investment in the solutions.

  18. Chris Sharples

    September 18, 2016 at 8:45 pm

    #10 you ask “Where are the usual suspects of denial?” Well, I think they’re having to stick their heads further into the sand in order to avoid noticing all the increasingly obvious indications of climate change, consequently they cant surface so often to make their tedious claims.

    I wonder if they’ve managed to avoid noticing that Tasmania’s oyster industry is in dire trouble because of new diseases brought by warmer waters, or that fires and high rainfall / flooding events are becoming more intense more often, just as may be expected from basic theory as the world warms.

    Oh that’s right, just natural variability, right? That argument is starting to wear pretty thin, we’re well past the limits of Twentieth Century natural variability now….

  19. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    September 18, 2016 at 9:50 pm

    #16 John

    “validated by other research”??

    The scientific data shows that there is a significant difference between the satellite data and the surface temperature data (the so called ‘hockey stick’ is based on the surface data).

    I am not a climate scientist but as a physical scientist I accept that global warming due to human emission of CO2 is an significant issue and ought to be of concern to us.

    However, my understanding is that the main difference in the opinion between the climate scientists who are considered to be ‘alarmist’ and those who are considered to be ‘sceptics’, seems to be centred around the issue of climate sensitivity to the rising CO2 levels. Climate models seem to be based on an assumption of a higher sensitivity than is observed by the balloon and the satellites.

    The problem with the surface based data seems to be that there is an over-representation of data from the warmer parts of the world. There is a graph I saw which indicates that there has been a significant drop in the thermometer stations from the cooler parts of the globe since about 1990. This may have biased the surface data towards the ‘warmer data’. The satellite data seems to offer a move even distribution of measurements across the globe. It would be of great scientific interest to see what the satellite data shows over the rest of this decade.

  20. Keith Antonysen

    September 19, 2016 at 1:19 am

    No 19, Peter

    Are you able to produce a reference to the suggestion that areas in higher latitudes are cooling?
    It is totally contrary to everything I’ve been reading; except for an area in the Atlantic Ocean South of Greenland.

    Lakes forming on Greenland ice sheets.
    Lack of snow and ice since 2003 in Alaska at times for the Iditarod dog sled race a number of times.
    Ski fields on the West Coast of USA lacked snow, when the East Coast States were overwhelmed with snow.
    Huge fires in boreal forest areas; Siberia, Northern Canada and Alaska. There are currently wildfires in Siberia.
    Periodically I’ve checked temperature of Slavbard and noticed that temperatures have been higher than usual.
    Thawing of permafrost only occurs when temperature has been higher than usual for a considerable period.
    Not long ago Eastern Antarctica, the supposed stable part; had lakes forming on the ice sheet. Very hard to believe, here is a reference:


    The message loud and clear is to go to original science sites:


    The Conversation has some good articles about satellite temperature measurement.

  21. Jon Sumby

    September 19, 2016 at 4:13 am

    #19, Dr Lozo, there are many myths that deniers cling to, most are a decades old and have been proven false as the science advances.

    The surface versus satellite data is one example. It is a forgotten argument nowadays, it is no longer relevant as the denier argument has been proven wrong – although it is still a zombie idea in their little world.
    As for the idea of a ‘temperature drop’ since 1990, that is an old idea that has been proven wrong:

    Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming…
    This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.


  22. Kim Peart

    September 19, 2016 at 10:44 am

    Some people blow off hot air over global warming driven climate change, then at best trust in old views that haven’t worked.

    Others pursue the sport of bating deniers, as if in a bull run.

    The sun of denial is setting now, as evidence melds into experience with fierce wildfires and the melting of the Arctic ice. In time, denial will vanish completely, but by then, our plight will be dark.

    I have been concerned for years now about a deeper level of denial, where the science is accepted, but the action needed is minimised for personal and political consumption. This is a far more dangerous form of denial, because it looks like a willingness to act, but allows the problem to grow and ultimately, contributes to the pending death of the Earth.

    The deeper level of denial gets darker, when wishful thinking replaces the need for action.

    If there is acceptance of the need to draw down atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm (now passing 400 ppm) to keep temperature rise below 1.5C (now passing 1C), then the hot debate needs to be exactly where we will get the energy from to extract excess carbon out of the air.

    350 CO2 in the air was passed in the 1980s, so there are three decades of planet wrecking to turn around. The volume of energy needed to do this work is so much greater, because most of the CO2 released into the air has gone into the sea, and as carbon is extracted from the air, the oceans will release CO2 back into the air.

    It appears that 400 ppm CO2 in the air is the level to deliver a 3C temperature rise, so we are three decades past the tripping point and committed to hell on Earth now, made worse with every ppm CO2 released into the air.

    With no end in sight to the rise of CO2 in the air, are we gazing at 6C or more temperature rise, which may be sooner than we like, as the CO2 release is accelerating and more methane is now getting into the air, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas.

    If this is our reality, then what is the emergency level action to get back a safe Earth?

    If this is not our reality, then please show me how it isn’t and why it is OK to be running with the bulls of denial.

    If a critical number of people who cared about the Earth and human life faced the brutal truth and demanded action, we could turn the tide, even from Tasmania.

    What is the plan to win back a safe Earth?

  23. Keith Antonysen

    September 19, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    No 22, Kim

    You are far more optimistic than me about the sun setting on denier land. Some deniers are highly skilled in sophistry; not all people who read articles about climate change make comments, that is the group we need to communicate with through debunking deniers.

    A tool that deniers use is to misrepresent what scientists are saying in their papers. The most recent example is research by Zharkova et al which went viral in denier land as a cooling period had been posited.

    Valentine Zharkova was interviewed by USA Today, the first sentences were:

    “”No one is more surprised than Valentina Zharkova that her research prompted a worldwide media storm over the next ice age.

    That’s because her research never even mentioned an ice age.””

    At the last election climate change was hardly a topic; before politicians will act they feel they need support from the electorate.

    The Federal LNP is stating that it is pushing policies conducive to the Paris Agreement; yet, their actions suggest otherwise. Examples being, retrenching a large number of climate scientists and re-employing a few after the hostility generated; the new Minister supporting the Adani proposed mine in Queensland; the LNP pushed the proposal to hobble ARENA, it is an attack on re-newable energy.

    Also, disregarding the minority report from the Climate Change Authority, since Bernie Fraser and Co, resigned the Authority has been stacked by LNP supporters; previously when Bernie Fraser had been CEO of the Authority far more stringent emission goals had been stated taking into account climate risks.

    A factor that has an impact on decisions by politicans is political donations; the LNP and Labor have received generous donations from fossil fuel companies.

    Till so far denier groups have been successful, recent polls in the US about climate change are a real worry. Politicians need to feel that they have support from the electorate; hence, we need to tackle any denier commentary in my view.

  24. Kim Peart

    September 19, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    A day will come when climate change denial will be declared criminal, as with holocaust denial, because the situation will be that dire and governments will be getting heavy on survival action.

    I suggest that much climate change denial exists, because too many people who accept the science, do not accept the level of action needed to win back a safe Earth. This deeper level of denial plants those who run with the denial bulls on that side, because they are running with the bulls instead of dealing with the carbon crisis. And the carbon energy monopoly gets to keep raking in the profits, as the Earth dies.

    I suggest that the solution to the carbon problem, that I can see, will inspire much more action than saving the planet, and be so compelling, climate denial arguments will lose their point.

    Climate change denial serves carbon energy propaganda. Running with the denial bulls, instead of fighting for a real working solution, can simply end up giving power to the carbon energy monopoly, by not getting real working energy alternatives happening.

    Unless a real working alternative to carbon energy is being bannered and drummed, then opposition to carbon energy will be useless and simply empower climate denial.

    What is missing in the whole climate debate is where the energy will come from to draw down atmospheric carbon below 350 ppm and how soon this will be acted on. Where will the energy come from to do the work?

    The carbon energy monopoly has got away with blue murder since the 1960s, because of this deeper level of denial over energy that has preferred suburban alternatives to a planet sized working solution.

    Is it time to get serious yet?

  25. Helen Hutchinson

    September 19, 2016 at 4:32 pm

    Perhaps a dose of reality is needed. We need both to reduce emissions immediately AND to find some way of extracting C02 from the atmosphere.
    No time to waste folks. Read the document attached to the URL
    https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://media.wix.com /ugd/148cb0_87bbbc8197824d4ab66c85d059020ae8.pdf
    or Google Climate Reality Check Spratt

  26. Ted Mead

    September 19, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    #25 Helen – I couldn’t open your link.

    It is highly unlikely that we are about to reduce C02 emissions much in the immediate future.

    So massive carbon sequestration seems the only option.

    Even if we suddenly began reafforesting the earth on a massive scale, the time it will take to reduce the cppm back to acceptable levels is beyond the growing time frame we need to act within.

    The answer lies in our oceans, both in absorption and sequestration!

    Carbon can be stored in a pressured layer deep beneath our oceans.

    The most productive way of absorbing carbon appears to be in the development of commercial seaweed and seagrass farming. This is already extensively happening in the South China Sea, but needs to be extended on a massive global scale to be effective.

    To reduce the cppm, by 100 ppm the earth needs to sequest about 4.8 Gigatonnes of Carbon a year to return the levels close to what they were before the industrial revolution. That would require removing 1800 gigatonnes of CO2, which is the same amount that was added by human activity between 1750 and 2000.

    Even if we closed every coal station on the planet to stop ongoing emissions, there is still no possible means with current technology to absorb any more that 1 Gigatonne of Carbon per year.

    That leaves a big black hole in plugging up the problem.

    And we aren’t even discussing the methane issue much yet.

  27. Kim Peart

    September 19, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    If there is no plan in play to draw down atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm, then how in the hell is anyone with a brain going to be inspired to help reduce carbon emissions? People are not that stupid and they will see the no brainer of no plan and when the latest CO2 level is read in the news, wonder why they should bother.

    The number one priority now is the extraction of CO2 from the air, which can be done, but will require a humungous amount of energy to do the work. That is why I ask where the energy will come from to get CO2 below 350 ppm, so temperature rise will be below 1.5C.

    Reducing CO2 in the air will be a futile exercise, if the CO2 level outpaces all efforts, as natural stores of CO2 and methane are now being released in increasing volume.

    We are going deeper into crisis, with no plan that will inspire global action. With no CO2 extraction option on the table, all efforts to reduce CO2 simply empower the fossil fuel industry.

    There is a way out of the carbon quagmire, a whole planet solution, but it will require a radical rethink of where our energy comes from and how we do this work.

    If we demonstrate that we are deadly serious about carbon extraction from the air, then we can hope to inspire people to act on shifting gears to living a sustainable lifestyle on Earth, which includes being aware of their carbon footprint and reducing carbon emissions.

    We must also deal with an army of other problems, to deliver a healthy Earth, and the first enemy to defeat, is carbon extraction.

    Victory there will open the way to winning back a safe Earth.

  28. Jon Sumby

    September 19, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    #24, 25, 26, Kim, Helen, Ted.

    There are several serious problems with collecting CO2 from the air.

    ‘Even under the IPCC’s most optimistic scenario of future CO2 emission levels (RCP2.6), in order to keep temperature rises below 2℃ we would have to remove from the atmosphere at least a few billion tons of carbon per year and maybe ten billion or more – depending on how well conventional mitigation goes.

    We currently emit around eight billion tonnes of carbon per year, so the scale of the enterprise is massive: it’s comparable to the present global scale of mining and burning fossil fuels.’

    Can you see international political action on such a scale in a timeframe for success?

    Where would 8-10 billion tonnes of CO2 be put every year so that it will not escape?

    Ted, do you really mean to pollute the deep ocean and kill the entire deep sea ecosystem in the process? The deep ocean also has currents that well up to the surface when they hit continents, for example, off South America. As well, the CO2 will greatly increase acidification if it is done as you propose.

    About 28% of human CO2 emissions are absorbed by the ocean. This relates to the partial pressure of CO2 and Henry’s Law, and to the sting in the tail, outgassing.

    If CO2 is pulled from the air in the quantities required, the partial pressure will drop and CO2 will be outgassed from the oceans to return the equilibrium.

    This is the sting in the tail, because this is predicted to occur naturally as the partial pressure relationship includes temperature and as the temperature rises less CO2 can be sequestered in the ocean, therefore it is expected that sometime in the next 50-80 years the oceans will no longer be a carbon sink and will actually be an emissions source. Not good news.

    So while it is technically feasible to engineer CO2 removal from the atmosphere, the scale and cost and co-operation needed is I think insurmountable.

    The problem of storage has no feasible answer.

    The problem of outgassing means any program will not reduce CO2 levels until the ocean sequestered CO2 has also been released and stored and that is hundreds of billions of tonnes, i.e. most of the emissions over the last century.

    There is the term ‘committed warming’, that is heat that is in the system but has not yet appeared. The warming we are experiencing now is from the emissions from 1960-1990. We have more warming to come from the emissions over the last 30 years, and it will take decades before atmospheric CO2 extraction could possibly be workable; at that point it will already be game over.

  29. mike seabrook

    September 19, 2016 at 9:09 pm

    qu1 – why should i do anything and pay if the other bloke/woman makes things worse

    qu2 – if we wanna do something surely could recommence construction of the gordon-below-franklin hydro scheme and help put the victorian brown coal electricity generators out of business and/or chuck out the zinc works and the aluminium smelter

    qu3 – more intense settlement of the cities to cut out transport use

    qu4 – decrease population – who – not me or don’t stop wars elsewhere or don’t improve health care then consider people movements to more favourable climates like tassies

    qu5 much higher taxes on energy putting who out of business/jobs

    qu6 . how would tassie be better off or worse off

  30. Jon Sumby

    September 19, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    Ted, another reason why ocean sequestration is not a plan:

    ‘Rising temperatures make carbon dioxide leak from the oceans for two main reasons. First, melting sea ice increases the rate that the ocean mixes, which dredges up CO2-rich deep ocean waters. Second, “when you warm the ocean up, just like warming up a Coke bottle, it drives the gas out,” says van Ommen.’

    Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought

  31. Ted Mead

    September 20, 2016 at 1:38 am

    #28 -30 – Jon

    The science claims that carbon can be stored at deep ocean depths.

    The problem I have with this is that the scientific research is in its infancy so I have great reservations about this process until extensive research is undertaken.

    The ultimate solution to carbon storage then the answer lies in the geosequestration of freezing C02.

    The only method to do so is by containing it at the south pole.
    C02 freezes at minus 78.5 degrees C.- Antarctica temperatures have been recorded at minus 89.2 C. at the Vostok station on the ice cap. So even taking into account the summer medium temperatures it would be possible of establishing storage facilities to contain it.

    Given the cost estimates to be in the trillions of dollars it is unlikely to be considered until the earth is in extreme crisis, which is probably about 30 years away. By then it will probably be too late.

    Considering the Earth’s wealth is controlled by the conservative few percent then finances for such stalemate schemes will never be forthcoming, even though we are on the worst-case emission trajectory at present.

    The human race is therefore rapidly approaching checkmate!!!!!!!

  32. Kim Peart

    September 20, 2016 at 11:40 am

    Pumping extracted CO2 into the deep ocean would be extremely dangerous, given that CO2 that has been absorbed into the sea is driving up the acidity of the oceans, which is presenting a threat to the marine life, in part because of the rapid rate of change.

    Warming oceans are changing oceans and deep wells may not remain deep, therefore leading to the release of more CO2 into the air, where it will drive up the greenhouse effect.

    Pumping CO2 into the sea may also prove risky politically.

    One of the darker predictions is for sulphur bugs from the deep ocean to rise to the surface and bloom, as waters warm, as dead zones grow and multiply, as ocean acidity rises. At the surface sulphur bugs will bloom in the Sun like there is no tomorrow, releasing toxic hydrogen sulphide gas that will kill life on land and damage the ozone layer, letting in lethal doses of solar and cosmic radiation, killing more life on land. This process is believed to have been one of the players in the first great extinction event on Earth, the Great Dying of 252 million years ago, when most of life perished on this planet.

    Any recovery from such an event would be a tougher call now, as the Sun is slowly getting hotter, making it harder for the Earth’s life-support systems to maintain a steady temperature for life, leading to a collapse to a permanently hotter environment, which lovelock warns can happen swiftly, which Hansen says will lead to a dead Earth.

    If such a program were to begin, as desperate measures will be tried as the carbon crisis edges toward an apocalypse, a release of hydrogen sulphide gas that takes out a coastal city, or three, may put an end to that bright idea.

    Fear is a powerful driver of human behaviour, whether the cause is scientifically proven, or not.

    Parking CO2 in Antarctica may seem cool now, but as the planet heats up, ice melts and the CO2 would be out to play greenhouse games again.

    After a long build-up, ice can melt rapidly. Melt pools have been observed in Antarctic, like those on the Greenland ice sheet.

    Melt pools of water are a bad sign for the future of Antarctica.

  33. Keith Antonysen

    September 20, 2016 at 11:51 am

    No 9, Rod

    You say: “I saw this on facebook and I couldn’t believe that they’re recycling this rubbish. It’s just a vertical version of the now thoroughly discredited Mann hockey stick and bears no resemblance to climate history. It gives climate science a bad name.”

    A number of times I’ve written about ExxonMobil; here is the latest news, similar material comes to me each day:


    The first paragraphs from the article:

    “The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is reportedly investigating Exxon on allegations that the company is not accounting for the longterm risks of climate change.
    According to multiple reports, Exxon might not be accurately valuing its assets during the current spate of low oil prices or, in the longer term, in the face of climate change disruptions and decreased fossil fuel use.

    It is illegal to misrepresent financial information, including asset values, to shareholders.”

    A further quote:

    “The news comes nearly a year after Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times independently discovered that Exxon scientists were aware as far back as the 1970s that burning fossil fuels leads to climate change.”

    Fossil fuel companies were involved in rewriting history through funding denier groups. In relation to the funding of denier groups, Exxon has spent over $30 million dollars on denier groups over a number of years; that is known, their scientists were providing mutually exclusive evidence to the garbage put out by denier groups.

    A number of studies support the hockey stick; the evidence coming out now places even further doubt on what deniers groups are writing.

    We all need to do as much as possible to minimalist our carbon footprint; we can walk more, drive less and slower, only use airlines when absolutely necessary, buy solar panels if able to afford them, grow our own veggies, and contact politicians.

  34. Pete Godfrey

    September 20, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    The problem does seem to be gigantic.
    I just did a back of the envelope calc based on tree plantation carbon storage.
    Using a 10 tonne per ha per annum storage level we would need to establish 500 million hectares of forest to meet the storage needs and stop temperature rise.
    That is 5 million square kilometres of forest.
    Sounds like a lot, it is , the equivalent to 73 Tasmania’s in forest needs to be planted.
    Unless technology comes to the rescue and we find a way to emulate trees and extract carbon from the atmosphere and use it in the form of carbon fibre to manufacture out buildings, bridges, roads, houses, and machines.
    It is a big ask.
    Then some one said 2 millenia ago, ask and you shall receive. Here’s hoping.

  35. Got Me an Anthill

    September 20, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    Love the graphic.

    We have been like marching ants through history. All was well until we got clever.

  36. davies

    September 20, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    This is why the warmists are not taken seriously. You cannot discern between the well-credentialed scientist, and they can be a warmist or skeptic, and those less-credentialed.

    Michael ‘hide the decline’ Mann makes it very clear in climategate how he operates. Claiming he has won a Nobel prize when he has not, and continuing to claim he has won a Nobel prize even after the Nobel Committee has asked him to desist from that claim, clearly demonstrates a personality that is comfortable with making up facts.

    So it should not come as a surprise that at least 100 highly-credentialed scientists, a number of them who are warmists, have castigated the hockey-stick graph as junk science.

    As for this graph, it seems to dismiss the MWP as a regional fad despite numerous papers suggesting the MWP was at least as warm as it is now. But at least it gets a mention. What happened to the Roman Warming Period and the Minoan Warming Period? Ice cores from Greenland have the Roman warmer than the MWP and the Minoan warmer than the Roman. Still I guess it is a comic so we cannot expect accuracy.

    Anyone else see the science paper on the existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot” and the validity of EPA’s C02 Endangerment Finding?

    Conclusion “these analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that the EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot, caused by rising atmospheric C02 levels, simply does not exist in the real world.” Ouch! It goes on to skewer all the warmist hype but the feint of heart have already scrambled to their safe rooms. The authors are Dr James Wallace, Dr John Christy, Joseph D’Aleo. There are seven reviewers all with impressive credentials.

  37. Chris Sharples

    September 20, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    #36 The usual big claims by davies (whoever that is),with the usual lack of checkable sources.

    Where can I read about these Greenland ice cores? (other than on a denier website, that is?)

    Who are the three authors and seven reviewers mentioned in the last para? (I’ve never heard the authors names in connection with credible climate science); where is this “science paper” you refer to to be found?? (not in the journal “Science” I’ll bet!)

    Not a very convincing defence of your claim that “warmists are not taken seriously”!; and by whom anyway? Andrew Bolt? Gina Rinehart? Eric Abetz??

    You need to do better than this to convince anyone davies (whoever you are).

  38. Philip Lowe

    September 21, 2016 at 1:11 am

    here in the jolly old and cold UK they are about to build a new Nuclear power generation reactor at Hinkley Point. Deep joy.
    Overpopulation again. Close to the sea, oh Fukushima you guys, is this wise? It is being built with the ‘help’ of the French and the Chinese-the same people who make all those plastic things and stuff,only you get a guarantee with those.
    Mates,we’re stuffed.That wonderful chart should have included the invention of the good old French letter,those wonderful little rubber things that go over the dick to prevent unwanted babies coming into the world.Less people, less trouble in the world.
    I noticed that there was no mention of the Jews and Israel on the chart.Considerering that this a potential source of a nuclear war and mass destruction of the planet,I consider a tad remiss.

  39. abs

    September 21, 2016 at 1:23 am

    it is very time consuming following up on you posts, davies. having to google bits that you post only to be presented with google search results containing seemingly endless denier websites regurgitating the same tidbit you regurgitate.

    you see scientists reference their source. secondly, scientists reference science, not websites, when engaging in scientific debate. thirdly, scientists refernce by providing all the relevant information needed to easily source the relevant scientific paper. a reference generally looks like this-

    Author, A. (year), ‘Title’ Journal Name, Volume number, issue number, page number

    you do come across as quite desparate now.

  40. Kim Peart

    September 21, 2016 at 6:22 am

    The simple solution to the carbon crisis, which drives global warming, climate change, ocean acidification and is a threat to life on Earth, is to use the power of the Sun to extract excess carbon from the air.

    Carbon can be cracked out of CO2, but it takes a heap of energy, which can be gained from the Sun.

    It helps to appreciate just how much power radiates from our star, which has so much fuel in reserve, it will burn fiercely over the next 5 billion years, expanding to the orbit of the Earth as a red giant.

    The Sun is not a renewable energy source, because its fuel supply is not being renewed, and should not be seen on the same par as renewables like wind, wave or hydro, which are ultimately powered by the Sun.

    The most effective way to harvest the energy of the Sun, is with solar power stations in space, where the Sun never sets, with the energy beamed to Earth to do the work.

    This was all worked out in the 1970s and could have been happening in the 1980s, replacing carbon energy.

    Is there any chance this alternative didn’t happen, because it would have put the carbon energy monopoly out of business?

    It is a striking detail that as the carbon tipping point of 350 ppm CO2 was being kicked over in the 1980s, we gained the ability to build an alternative that would have avoided the carbon crisis and kept our Earth safe.

    Everyone missed the bus, so we have to run pretty hard now to catch up with a lost 40 years of action.

    Who would have believed back then, that a carbon crisis could come upon us so swiftly?

    Now, if survival matters and we care about the life of the Earth, we must interest a critical number of people on Earth in the task of kicking the carbon energy monopoly out of the way and get back to the future.

    With the power of the Sun, extracted carbon can also be processed into a useful resource for Earth and space industries.

    With solar power stations in space, industry can be launched beyond Earth, with which we can build a sunshade to cool the Earth.

    Once a sustainable industrial presence is secured beyond Earth, there will be no further cost to Earth, and we can look toward an infinite return on the investment, from across the Solar System and among the stars.

    It is the unlimited return of a stellar economy to Earth, which will give us the means to deal with all problems on Earth.

    With industry in space, we will be able to step gently on the Earth, where airships can replace jet planes and cargo ships in a slow Earth movement.

    Travel in space is fast, where all our wildest dreams can be realised.

    With a stellar economy founded on the power of the Sun, we will be able to send poverty into history, delivering a healthy and creative future for all Earth’s children.

    This work can happen as the initiative of a few individuals, even from Tasmania, if we love the Earth and the life of Nature.

    We have the tools in our hands now to inspire any number of people, humbly and with strength, to fight for a safe Earth.

    It is surely in our bones to run with survival, when a way to safety is found.

    Contact me ~ kimpeart@iinet.net.au ~ if interested in crunching the details.

    A narrow focus on the Earth alone is a death-trap, and an evolutionary dead-end.

    Only by considering our future in the light of the Solar System as a whole, can a working solution to the carbon crisis be seen.

    If our focus remains on Earth alone, we are doomed.

  41. Pete Godfrey

    September 21, 2016 at 10:53 am

    #40 Kim, we have the solution here on Earth now.
    It requires no real energy inputs other than a bit of moisture and sunlight. It can crack carbon from the atmosphere in silence and add other valuable effects to our climate and amenity. It can increase rainfall, protect the soil, clean waterways and provide oxygen while storing carbon.
    It is called “Trees”
    If humanity suddenly becomes intelligent enough to want to preserve itself then the answer is.
    To cooperate and replant the parts of the planet that are bare of vegetation.
    Like most of Australia.
    If an area that is 70% of the size of Australia were replanted the problem would be solved.
    That is if we also managed to decide to reduce the amount of pollution that we make.
    Going off into space to continue what we are doing now is really more akin to the actions of a virus. Are we just a virus?

  42. phill Parsons

    September 21, 2016 at 11:50 am

    So the denier davies appears with nothing but a bag of unreferenced hot air from others whilst the governments of the old parties continue to promote coal mining and drilling for oil and gas including fracking.

    They have acknowledged the problem but are unable to implement the solution. Is this the behaviour of fools or is it criminal. I opt for the latter.

  43. Chris Sharples

    September 21, 2016 at 11:57 am

    #41 I totally agree. The problem with Kim’s big solution is that it doesn’t solve the underlying problems of human greed and denial at all, it just spreads them out away from the Earth, so that we can persist for longer without having to fundamentally change. Not a very satisfying solution at all in my humble opinion.

  44. Kim Peart

    September 21, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    Re: 41 ~ Should we ask, what does Nature want?

    When I explored this question (see link to my article in comment 11), I saw that expansion was at work from the beginning of time.

    Why do humans exist?

    As Nature cannot expand life beyond Earth on its own, I wonder if we are the means to that end.

    Is our evolutionary role in life to run with Nature in the expansion of life in the Universe?

    So not to run with expansion would be unnatural and to fight Nature.

    We gained the ability to run with Nature beyond Earth in the 1960s, but succumbed to carbon energy propaganda to focus on the belly of the Earth for energy, for their power and wealth.

    Views that wish for paradise, but will not run with natural expansion, empower carbon energy propaganda and greed, which we now see delivers carbon death to life.

    The challenge is to work through what will happen if we run with Nature beyond Earth.

    When I did this, I could see a solution to each and every problem that now confounds us on Earth.

    Why would anyone turn their back on working solutions to the preservation of life and give power to carbon energy and death?

    That is what happens when the conservation minded will not consider what Nature really wants?

    If the Earth-only view is religious in nature, then this needs to be questioned, if it leads to the death of life on Earth.

    In the same way, carbon energy greed needs to be questioned, where it delivers the death of life on Earth.

    On Earth alone we run the risk of conflict that slides into nuclear madness.

    By running with Nature into space I see the opportunity to build peace on Earth.

    When we follow through with how a future beyond Earth will work, it can be seen that this is the only way that we can deliver peace on Earth.

    With peace on Earth, with a safe Earth, trees can be planted that will survive and be forests.

    Will we dare to be the angels of life among the stars, or risk being the devils of death on Earth?

  45. Ted Mead

    September 21, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    # 41 Pete

    Planting trees is a good start, but essentially we are just playing catch up unless the world changes it way regarding energy consumption and C02 output.

    Reafforestation of the planet would be the most ideal solution if we have the will and time to undertake such a massive project.

    What would drive such a grand reafforestation initiative will be the economic return on the trees that are most likely to be planted. That would probably encompass exotic or GM species that grow fast as a justification of investment return.

    Planting great expanses of non-native trees that are not associated with the local environment will unquestionably effect the bio diversity of area, but if it’s already trashed farmland then some canopy cover maybe considered much better than none at all.

    Such a concept will bring about a dispute over arable land use for farming. One of the most crucial aspects of making our future world sustainable is to convert everyone to a vegetarian diet, along with reducing population numbers dramatically, and relinquishing the obsession to domesticating animals for our countless millions of feline and canine pets that gobble up our sea and land life. Doing that will be like trying to hold back the ocean’s tide.

    Essentially human’s activity on earth has been become so complex and unstainable in so many ways that there is no simple solution beyond the likelihood of self-eradication, which is the current direction we are on a rapid trajectory towards!

  46. Jon Sumby

    September 21, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    Here’s a video from the recently released album ‘Kill Climate Deniers: Listening Party Mix’.

    ‘“There are plain-clothed police officers patrolling every floor. You’ll be watched on camera for the whole trip and Australian federal police officers are armed with SR16 semi-automatic assault rifles,” he said. “When you head through security, act as normal as possible. How does a normal person act? Be like that.”

    Easier said than done. Ingall’s concept album was based on a playscript called Kill Climate Deniers by the experimental theatremaker David Finnigan. The play is a hostage drama about an eco-terrorist attack on Parliament House with the tagline: “What happens when the unstoppable force of climate change meets the immovable object of Australian politics?”’


  47. Keith Antonysen

    September 21, 2016 at 1:54 pm

    Pete @41

    To plant trees relentlessly is clearly part of the solution.

    But, more needs to be done than plant trees. In the Amazon Basin and Indonesia huge tracks of Tropical Forest is being lost through wild and set fires. When ground story, understory, and top story of those forests are taken into account numerous cubic kilometres of forest is being lost. Drought is becoming more of an issue in the Amazon Basin now. Tropical Forests have been very effective in capturing carbon.

    Currently, there are wild fires in the boreal forests of Siberia; and much forest has been lost in the US through wildfire, stress from drought and insect attack.

    It is a mammoth task just to keep up with forests that are being lost.
    Fossil fuels need to be phased out much faster than is happening world wide. While we get angry with the Australian government, generally governments elsewhere are making decisions not conducive to fully tackling the issue; an example being constructing huge pipe lines to carry oil, a huge issue in the US at present. Indigenous North Americans are valiantly fighting to stop a pipeline from beingt built over their land.

    Politicians will suggest that the Paris Accord has set us on track to tackle climate change; however, not a lot of action is taking place.
    The Australian governments response to climate change does not bear close scrutiny.

    So we do need to plant huge tracts of land, but, I do not believe that to be the whole answer.

    A legacy of fracking is that old discarded sites are belching out methane, even though they have been capped. An important matter, as combined with methane voiding in the Arctic the trend line is not a healthy one. Methane discharge from old mines needs to be dealt with more adequately.

    A week or so ago on a blog it was suggested that by 2024 the volume of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean would be lost. Pretty hard to believe, I found figures for sea ice volume and did some primitive calculations which broadly suggested that the commentary to be true as long as the trend line continues (16,900 km3 in 1979, 5,700 km3 in 2015, 3,700 km3 in 2012 via PIOMASS). The question at the moment is how much lower will the volume be for 2016, in comparison to 2015.

    It does send a message that we face high risks, action needs to happen quickly; apart from, a huge tree planting program.

  48. Jon Sumby

    September 21, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    A side by side comparison, well worth a look!

    Spiraling Atmospheric CO2 and Global Temperature.

    This NASA video is from 2014 but it is worth watching again.

    NASA | A Year in the Life of Earth’s CO2


  49. Chris Sharples

    September 21, 2016 at 5:47 pm

    #44 Kim your teleology is naive – nature doesn’t “want” or “intend” anything. That’s quasi-religious twaddle. It is us humans who are the only evolved consciousnesses that we know of in the Universe, hence it is only us who create purposes or ‘want’ anything.

    The fact that the Universe is expanding does not mean we should see endless expansion as our ultimate purpose either – that is a cosmic fallacy akin to to the biological fallacy of Social Darwinism. And anyway, no natural systems expand for ever anyway, expansion is only ever a phase that systems go through before something else happens.

    Given that we (and not ‘nature as a whole’) have evolved consciousness and thus the capacity to create our own purposes, I think our next order of business should not be to decide that our purpose is to expand ad infinitum, but rather to over-come the greed beyond need and denial of reality that are an unfortunate consequence of the (unplanned and unguided) way that we evolved. That not only strikes me as a more noble goal than un-ending expansion, but more sensible as well since it tackles our underlying problems rather than imagining they are “natures plan for us” and letting then become the rest of the Universe’s problems as well.

  50. mark h

    September 21, 2016 at 5:59 pm

    #9,36. There is only one science where sceptics aren’t welcome. Very telling I say.

    ‘Global Warming Alarmists Promote XKCD Time Series Cartoon, Ignore Its Mistakes’


    As for Manns Hockey Stick – worth about as much as Cook’s 97% BS. Steyne Vs Mann will be most interesting.

  51. mark h

    September 21, 2016 at 7:23 pm

    At Flannery’s climate talk in Hobart some months ago, he answered a question about more tree planting. His answer was that if you planted trees all over Australia it would not help because the darker colour would attract heat. No wonder Prof Curry calls the climate a wicked mess. Science is settled, no debate needed Lol.

  52. Kim Peart

    September 21, 2016 at 10:49 pm

    Re: 43 ~ Faced with a question of survival, we decide whether survival matters to us, and what we are going to do about it.

    If we choose survival, then we can figure out what path of action will work best.

    Since 1975 I have been seeking to understand how we can best live with Nature on Earth.

    In 1976 I became aware of the options beyond Earth.

    In 1994 I came to see that our future survival is directly linked to how we manage human activity in the Solar System as a whole.

    In 2006 I finally figured out how to tell this story.

    Since then I have been seeking ways to share the action, locally and globally.

    We see incredible bad behaviour around the World, but do we give up on survival because of that?

    We can hardly wait for the World to be perfect, before we do anything.

    When I look at the demands of survival in the Solar System, I see new ways will be needed.

    I see a process of humanity maturing as we run with Nature beyond Earth.

    But while we cling to the Earthly cradle, I see an extended juvenile phase in human evolution, which we now see with the carbon crisis, can lead to an evolutionary dead-end.

    Is it worth investigating the prospect of human maturity being realised in the Solar System as a whole, as a celestial civilization?

    Is it worth figuring out how swiftly we can get there, and solve all problems on Earth to boot?

    To solve all problems on Earth has to be a big idea, or we trudge round in circles in a carbon quagmire, as the planet goes to hell.

  53. TGC

    September 22, 2016 at 12:15 am

    You all worry too much- it’ll be right.

  54. Kim Peart

    September 22, 2016 at 11:01 am

    Re: 49 ~ Understanding our role in the Universe would be very helpful.

    Go through every step of how the Universe has revealed itself, and an orderly progression can be seen, from hot plasma, to matter, to stars, to planets, to life, and to the clever tool maker.

    We are an expression of Nature, which is a pretty ferocious process of delivering diversity.

    If our ecological role as tool makers is to assist life’s expansion, then I wonder if our strife is a direct consequence of clinging to the planet cradle.

    We are extending a juvenile phase of growth on Earth, which is turning our presence on the planet into a cancer that kills life.

    To continue cancerous growth is the disease to win death with, and as the case appears, take out life on Earth with us.

    Our clinging to the nursery is therefore little more than murder-suicide, and this behaviour must be condemned.

    We can do so much better, if we love life.

    I see the expansion beyond Earth, too long delayed, as the way to the next phase in human evolution, where we become mature.

    We must become mature in space, if we hope to survive in space.

    We must become mature on Earth, if we hope to survive on Earth.

    Only by expanding beyond Earth will we gain the maturity to survive on Earth and in space.

    If we grow up and do this, we will see how it works.

    Follow the trail of questions and see how we have to change our ways to survive in space.

    It is the gaining of space consciousness that will allow us to survive in the cosmos and heal the Earth.

    There is much more waiting to be expressed through our hands and with our machines in space, if we will mature as a celestial civilisation.

    There is only death waiting, hungry as hell, if we insist on being a cancer.

    The carbon way of power has been tried on Earth and found wanting.

    The conservation way on Earth alone has been harped on about for decades, but has not worked, and with a total focus on the Earth, has only allowed carbon energy power to dominate.

    The space way has not been tested or tried yet.

    What if it works?

  55. Kim Peart

    September 22, 2016 at 11:20 am

    Re: 51 ~ With the rise of CO2 in the air and no end of this in sight, and the increasing release of methane, raising the heat in the greenhouse, trees will have an increasingly tough time as the planet gets hotter.

    The space option would allow more trees to be planted on Earth that survive, by being able to construct a sunshade to help cool the planet.

    A sunshade could also double as a solar power collector, to do work in space.

    With space working and with industry beyond Earth, our home planet could be rezoned as residential, with light industry, and a good place for the evolution of new species.

    We could look to 40% of the planet being kept as wilderness, for evolution’s fierce ways.

    With the Sun getting hotter and expanding to the orbit of the Earth as a red giant over the next 5 billion years, life on Earth may have no more than a billion years to run.

    Our activities with carbon emissions look like bringing on an early death of the Earth.

    By getting serious about the space alternative, and building a sunshade in space, we will be able to extend the tenure of life on Earth by billions of years.

    Do we love the life of the Earth enough to do that?

  56. Keith Antonysen

    September 22, 2016 at 11:40 am

    In his maiden speech Malcolm Roberts spoke about his opinion in relation to climate change. Roberts presumably would be the pin up boy for those who deny man’s impact on climate.

    Professor Jones stated that Roberts violated all the laws of thermodynamics in his speech on climate change. To make it abundantly clear, Professor Jones’s criticism is about Physics; not, climate change as such.

    Quote from Professor Roger Jones:

    ““There is so much wrong in these few sentences that it is almost beyond parody — it turns the Senate Chamber into the theater of the absurd.

    Malcolm Roberts broke the first law of thermodynamics, which is the simplest — the conservation of energy — and then broke the rest of them.””


    Other actual scientists are quoted in the same article.

    In the US, scientists are worried by the the Trump commentary on climate change; they are just as stupid as those made by Roberts.



    “Human-caused climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a physical reality. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution. But the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This increase in greenhouse gases is changing Earth’s climate.”

    However, a political storm appears as though it is coming Trump’s way; should published allegations relating to misuse of a charity fund to pay legal fees be shown to be true.

    Copy and paste quote to find source article from Business Insider:

    “The Washington Post’s David Fahrenthold on Tuesday published a series of stunning revelations about Donald Trump’s charitable foundation, reporting that the Republican presidential nominee used money from the Trump Foundation to pay legal fees related to his businesses.

    The report, citing tax records, said Trump had not made a single donation to his charity since 2008 and sometimes used money from others through the foundation to pay off legal expenses.”

    Deniers are flogging a dead horse in regard to the so called hockey stick. Pick on subsequent research; and then, show where that is wrong in relation to Mann’s “hockey stick”. In relation to one study, Mann is quoted as saying that it provided a more sophisticated appraisal than his own. Data gets altered by deniers as shown in the previously referred video clips about Moncton.

  57. helen

    September 22, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    I’m sorry that link didn’t work, apparently it was too long. Still Googling Climate Reality Check and David Spratt should get you there.
    In case that is too hard, my personal choice from all scientists involved in climate science is Prof Kevin Anderson
    Using the little time remaining before we suffer worst extremes to try to extract CO2 from the atmosphere is, in his opinion, a waste of time and resources.
    He advocates stopping emissions beginning now, and making personal emissions reductions to the level of at least the average European. A friend has just told me that the UK, with 2.6 times our population, has emissions only 84% of ours.
    To all those who think why should I? I say it depends on how much you value life on earth.
    Australia’s international position on climate change is reprehensible.

  58. Jon Sumby

    September 22, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    ‘Occasionally, contrarians will say that no single weather event can prove human-caused global warming. But then they’ll point to somewhere that’s cold, claiming this disproves climate change.

    Often, deniers will tell you that temperature records show that global warming stopped at some point around 1998. But also they’ll insist that those same temperature records can’t be relied on because Nasa and the Bureau of Meteorology are all communist corruption monkeys. Or something.

    One of the authors’ examples of incoherent logic comes from the Australian geologist and mining industry figure Prof Ian Plimer and his 2009 book, Heaven and Earth – a book favourably cited by the likes of the former prime minister Tony Abbott and Cardinal George Pell.

    On page 278, Plimer writes that “temperature and CO2 are not connected” but, on page 411, writes that “CO2 keeps our planet warm”.

    According to the authors, their examples of “incoherence” only hold together in the minds of the deniers if you apply types of glue known as “conspiracist ideation” and “identity-protective cognition”.

    So what’s that all about?

    Conspiracist ideation, or conspiratorial thinking, is the tendency to entertain suggestions: for example that Nasa and the Bureau of Meteorology are conspiring to deliberately manipulate temperature data just to make global warming seem worse than it really is, rather than to correct for known issues.

    An example of “identity-protective cognition” in this case, the authors explain, is where people who advocate for small governments and “free markets” face a dilemma.

    Accepting the scientific consensus would likely see increased levels of regulation, which challenges their identity as free-market advocates. So instead, the authors argue, the only options open are to either deny the consensus or try and discredit it.’

    How climate science deniers can accept so many ‘impossible things’ all at once

  59. mark h

    September 22, 2016 at 5:42 pm


    ‘As of mid-September, there have already been 77 peer-reviewed scientific papers authored by several hundred scientists linking solar activity to climate change.’


  60. abs

    September 22, 2016 at 7:20 pm

    mark h, if you haven’t caught on there is a strong messages on this thread about the unreliability of sourcing information from extremely dodgy denier websites. this ‘notrickszone’ site is the last place one should attempt to source relieable scientific information on climate.

    btw, i dont think it is breaking news that climate is related to solar activity…..this dodgy website is of course aiming to muddy the water in order to imply that solar activity is the main driver. in fact there is a link on the page you cite stating “35 New Scientific Publications Confirm Ocean Cycles, Sun Are Main Climate Drivers”. however even when this non-climate scientist (likely a non-scientist) tries to quote the supposed relavent passages from the papers, it is easy to see that they don’t state what he implies. c’mon mark…fish..bucket..you know!

  61. Jon Sumby

    September 22, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    # 59, mark h, as I’ve pointed out before the blog site ‘No Tricks Zone’ is not reliable. Kenneth Richard just collects reams of research that mention a topic and then claims this supports whatever denial idea he is running. This is the same.

    A look at the papers quoted show they are looking at aspects of solar activity and climate response, which is well known and an area of ongoing research.

    It is important to understand that:

    a; it is completely accepted by climate scientists that solar activity can affect regional climate but has a minimal effect on global climate change. This has been shown in research published last month, summarised in this article:


    b; The warming effect of CO2 is ten times greater than any warming effect by solar activity.

    c; As the graph in this article clearly shows, solar irradiance has been declining for the last 35 years while temperatures have been climbing, which is the opposite of what you would expect if solar activity drives climate change.


    d; The sun is a stable star and a research paper from 2014 traced solar activity during the last ice age and found that the pattern was the same during that 10,000 year ice age period and had no effect on the global climate but did show, again, regional variations.

    Solar activity has a minimal effect on climate, experienced in regional effects, like wetter or drier European winters depending on the state of the sun. Solar activity is measured, plotted, and included in global warming analyses but the effect is vanishingly small compared to CO2, methane, etc.

    Solar activity/sun spots is a tired idea, pushed by denier blogs like ‘No Tricks Zone’, which uses tricks and lies to push it’s agenda. Best for you to read real science and ignore unreliable sites like that one.

  62. TGC

    September 23, 2016 at 12:31 am

    #61 Easy to be seduced by “real science”

  63. mark h

    September 23, 2016 at 3:34 am

    ‘…77 peer-reviewed scientific papers…’

    I understand the peer-review process has come under question in the climate debate, but I thought a couple might be Ok.

  64. Kim Peart

    September 23, 2016 at 5:06 am

    Re: 61 ~ Yes, our star is stable and progressing through its life like all others of our Suns type.

    The reality of this normal state is that the Sun is now 35% hotter than at its birth 4.5 billion years ago and is ever so slowly increasing in radiance, toward becoming a red giant in 5 billion years, expanding to the orbit of the Earth.

    Our planet’s life-support systems have successfully maintained a steady temperature for life in the face of a warming star, but time presses on and the day will come when Nature will be overwhelmed by the increasing heat of the Sun, and in a billion years may be like Venus, with no water and no life.

    The human release of naturally sequestered CO2 is a highly risky experiment, in that our planet may be prematurely overwhelmed by the rising heat of the Sun, and swiftly shift to the next state as a permanently hotter planet, toward failing as a life supporting planet.

    The harshest part of the experiment is not knowing when the will of Nature will be broken, how swiftly the changes will occur, or how soon this tragedy will happen.

    That is why we have to get really serious about extracting excess carbon from the air ASAP, and getting ourselves into the position of being able to build a sunshade in space.

    We could extend the tenure of life on Earth by billions of years.

    Would that be worth achieving?

    Right now we are on death row, and we have no idea when we will be called out to face the executioner.

    Is that a risk worth taking?

  65. Abs

    September 23, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    Mark h,
    It is not an issue of there being anything sus about these peer reviewed studies, it is that they don’t show what this Richards clown claims they do. It is not hard understanding to grasp!

  66. Keith Antonysen

    September 23, 2016 at 12:55 pm

    63, mark h

    I visited your reference, it is just a poorly set up blog spot. The first name that came up was Kenneth Richards. Callander and ExxonMobil scientists of the 1970s make a nonsense of his comments.

    Where is the consensus in denier land?

    Roberts suggests a conspiracy via the United Nations. He also does not understand the laws of thermodynamics per Professor Roger Jones.
    The IPCC ( set up by UN) is attacked by those denying climate change; but then, sentences from the IPCC are cherry picked by deniers to back their arguments.
    Trump says the Chinese are responsible for pushing climate change to undermine the US economy.
    Dr Mann is attacked by denialists for the hockey stick notion; yet, following research supports his view.
    Deniers have pushed the so called climate gate still; even though there have been a number of investigations arising from the complaints clearing the scientists. Those investigations were not about criminal behaviour . ExxonMobil is being investigated for alleged criminal behaviour in relation to pushing mutually exclusive to financial markets involving climate change and risks involved for share holders. A number of State jurisdictions in the US are involved in the investigations, and it appears a Federal Agency is about to become involved. The paper trails certainly appear to show a strong prima facie case. At an extreme right wing site, deniers push climate gate periodically; yet, say ExxonMobil is innocent prior to possible Court case/s.
    Deniers accuse scientists of pushing a hoax; yet, as shown in film clips already presented, use doctored graphs and cherry pick to provide a completely different view.
    There have been cases where research authors have had to make statements after their research has been published to say the research has been completely misrepresented by denier journalists and groups.
    We get some deniers saying Earth is cooling; while others are saying that the sun is warming Earth more than usual.
    Deniers argue there is a conspiracy in relation to the how temperature from weather stations is tampered with. They believe satellite measure of inferred temperature is more accurate. But, there is much modelling involved in providing temperature from satellites which needs updating due to fluctuations in satellite flights. Satellite temperature is measured in slabs, so cannot be compared to weather station temperature.
    Some deniers say that CO2 has some impact on the climate; others are saying categorically that is not the case.
    I do go to denier sites to read references provided by deniers; I prefer the papers where the author has the prefix “Professor”, where they are writing about their field of expertise. Richards, Watt, Delingpole, Rose, Taylor, Joanna Nova et al are not scientists.

    Denier Agencies have been set up and paid for by fossil fuel companies; the Taxation Department in the US indicates ExxonMobil has paid almost $31 million to Denier Agencies.

    Renewable energy is now becoming cheaper than fossil fuels, it is now a matter of how quickly they will phase out (per Dr J Romm).

    So we have denier arguments with no consistency; arguing that peak Agencies such as NASA, CSIRO,NOAA et al along with thousands of climate scientists are wrong; yet, they hold consistent views.

    Deniers present mutually exclusive points of view; Malcolm Roberts doesn’t even get the Physics right (Laws of Thermodynamics).

    A good analogy to the denier argument; for a little levity:


  67. mark h

    September 23, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    #66 G’day Keith, the blog was just the vehicle that was carrying these 4 Papers. Truth is – I don’t know anything about Kenneth Richards.
    IMO what was interesting is where they are from and who is behind them. Let the US (Hansen, Mann etc) have a rest.

    1. Incarbona et al., 2016 (Sicily, Aegean Sea)
    ‘Funding for this work was provided by the European Union’s Seventh Framework programme’

    2. Lyu et al., 2016 (China)
    ‘This research was supported by the
    National Natural Science Foundation of China’

    3. Sunkara and Tiwari, 2016 (India)
    ‘1University Centre for Earth and Space Sciences
    2CSIR-National Geophysical Research Institute,

    4. Zhu et al., 2016 (China)
    ‘This research was supported by the
    National Natural Science Foundation of China’

  68. Rod

    September 23, 2016 at 8:34 pm

    Here is the article written by experts, based on real satellite measurements not models, that dismisses the role of CO2 in dangerous global warming. It’s contents are endorsed by leading scientists including an expert IPCC reviewer:


    So you can all relax now. It’s not CO2. Of course the climate science community will try and bury it as they do with any research that is ‘off message’.

  69. Rod

    September 23, 2016 at 9:04 pm

    There are five tests of dangerous man-made global warming in my view.
    1/. The tropical hot spot – missing except in climate computers. Note the authors of the latest report do not dismiss CO2 induced warming they just say that if it exists it must be by an as yet undiscovered mechanism! FAIL
    2/. Arctic and Antarctic warming – CO2 has more effect in these areas because of the lack of water vapour and sunshine. There has been some Arctic warming but this is a 70 year cycle. There are numerous reports of melting Arctic in the past and it is now recovering. There has been no significant Antarctic warming. Interestingly the tree line went right up to the north coast of Russia 6000 years ago. It would have had to be 6 degrees warmer. CO2 was 280ppm. In those days the Arctic ocean would have melted away in Summer. There is no record of methane or CO2 releases and the Greenland ice cap did not melt. Humans and Polar Bears survived. FAIL
    3/. The temperature went up 0.8 degree between 1898 and 1998. Is that dangerous? Past temperature records such as the CET show as much as 2.5 degrees rise in a century – three times as much. FAIL
    4/. In the modern accurate temperature record you would expect temperatures to follow CO2 fairly closely. In the years since C02 started rising strongly we’ve had 25 years of falling temperatures, 20 years of no change and only 20 years rising (actually worse correlation than pure chance) FAIL
    It’s very disappointing to see some climate so called scientists altering the record to fit their theory. Some temperature records have had whole degrees added or subtracted. Disgraceful.
    5/. In the very long term record we see hardly any correlation between CO2 and temperatures (less than pure chance) and interesting points like the 440 million years ago when CO2 was ten times what it is now and the Earth dropped in to an ice age. The sun was weaker then of course but you would expect to see a much better correlation all through the record. Also of note is that in the last interglacial, temperatures were two degrees higher than the present with CO2 about the same. FAIL
    I would now add a sixth as the alarmists have suggested the ridiculous proposition that all that extra heat is being stored in the oceans although by what mechanism and what point it cuts in or out they cannot say. If so, then the rise in global sea levels would have increased. The NOAA say that sea level rise is at the long term average about 17cms a century. The rate is not increasing. FAIL
    In the 40 years I’ve been studying climate, and it’s usually one or two hours a day, I’ve never found anything that persuaded me that CO2 is the main driver of climate only opinion and supposition. In fact, quite the opposite. I would like to see progress in climate science but it is being stifled by the blinkered view of the establishment that it’s CO2. Money is the driving force and it that way it has become corrupted at various levels. There are so many other options to research: Clouds, Sunspots, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, ocean oscillations, and ozone to name a few.
    Meanwhile CO2 is proving beneficial in that the carbon cycle, the giver of life, has more carbon to use producing record harvests, greater tree growth, greening of deserts and blooming marine life as the extra CO2 to build their carbonate skeletons becomes available. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the better life on Earth will be.

  70. Kim Peart

    September 23, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    Re: 66 ~ The IPCC, sadly, cannot be trusted for an accurate assessment of our plight today, because, though the findings are based on comprehensive peer reviewed findings of vast bodies of research, the information included is up to a decade out of date and only that approved by all participating governments makes muster in the final report.

    If out of date findings are troubling, how much more disturbing is the brutal truth of the reality we face now?

    That is why fighting deniers is just avoidance, another form of denial, when the real work at hand is to identify exactly what must be done now, especially in the light of tipping points having already been kicked over decades ago.

    It is disturbing to read of good people in this threat giving up, because they have added up the facts and see no hope.

    In the heat of our climate reality, the only game in town is that of survival.

    With survival, other activities are possible, but lose the race for survival, and nothing is possible.

    Rather than endless arguments with carbon energy propagandists, it would be good to hone in on the brutal truth of survival in the future we face now.

    For too many decades the conservation minded have empowered the carbon energy monopoly, by not dealing with the brutal truth of survival.

    If the battle for the Earth was getting somewhere, there might be a point in tackling carbon energy propaganda, but it is a failure of conservation to get action for a safe Earth that now puts us all on the path to hell.

    What we must do to survive is the only game in town, if we wish to survive.

    Get running on that, and the message of bloody minded determination for survival will leave no scope for the propaganda of death.

  71. abs

    September 23, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    rod, i have had a quick look on a couple of science databases (scopus, science direct) and can’t find this study, meaning that it does not look as if it has been peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal.

    can you provide some information as to whether it has been peer-reviewed? (i know the answer already: this is to demonstrate a central point).

    you are sliding back into conspiracy theory territory (“bury it”). you and mark seem to have no idea of what peer-review is, nor how it functions. the process places the reviewers’ work up for critique as well. the reality is is that (aside from the odd anomaly) peer-review results in research that lacks validity, reliability, quality, or relevance being rejected for publication.

    mark h, you seem to not understand. the website is not just a vehicle, the studies that are cited on this dodgy site DO NOT conclude what this Richards clown states and infers they do.

  72. mark h

    September 23, 2016 at 11:19 pm

    #71 Peer- Review is self explanatory. Though some scientists need to learn your work should be reviewed by a peer, not a mate.

    I don’t know Richards or care what he states. Pull apart the four studies and forget the blogs.

  73. abs

    September 23, 2016 at 11:47 pm

    and what is the source of this information in #69 rod?

    hartland institute??

    Kenneth Richards??

    Lord Mockington??

    no doubt it has come from a website, rather than from a collective of climate scientists who have published these positions in scientific peer-reviewed journals. don’t be shy, i sense that you are avoiding addressing this critical point.

    you’ve been “studying” climate for 40 years, rod. wow, you must have a lengthy and respectable list of publications. where can we view your work??

  74. Keith Antonysen

    September 24, 2016 at 11:14 am


    Please, providing Anthony Watts, from wattsupwiththat is meaningless, he has been proved wrong a number of times. He is not a climate scientist.
    In the past he has provided an inverted summation of ice extent in the Arctic.
    He has made unfounded allegations against temperature collation in the US; as his blog is often viewed authorities checked the weather stations that Watts complained about. No issues were found.
    He is ideologically driven; when asked why he was so involved with climate change his answer was concern about government regulation.

    A very recent paleoclimate study was able to identify sea ice extent ranging well back. They used digitised old maps and ship logs differentiating sea ice limits. Hyperlinks provide a reference to the properly published journal article.


    Both routes of the fabled North West Passage have been completed by an English yatch in 2016.

    ExxonMobil, Koch Bros and Peabody along with other fossil fuel companies have financed denier groups to create confusion about climate change. There is quite a body of material in relation to the funding of denier groups.

    Rod, I know that whatever I write you will not believe; but, I feel that false information from blogs must be shown to be wrong for people who read our comments but do not correspond.

    There are several experiments that display what happens between CO2 and light. You are not able to provide any experiments supporting your view. The first known experimentation with CO2 was carried out around 1856 by Eunice Foote.
    Here is the challenge it gets right to the basics, please provide experiments that back your point of view.

    Kim @ 70

    If false arguments are not tackled they gain traction, which lets politicians off the hook in relation to stronger policy.
    My point about the IPCC was about how deniers seek to debunk it; but also, use information from the IPCC inappropriately.
    The IPCC did not cover snow and ice very well … glacier/icesheet breakdown, permafrost, or methane discharge. More recent science research is more appropriate; as you say material from IPCC is ageing.

    We need to tackle the false information that deniers provide; take individual action e.g. grow our own vegies, use less fossil fuels, grow trees where we can etc; and contact politicians.

    Despite the LNP, trying to put the breaks on renewables becoming the dominant energy source they are increasingly out competing fossil fuels.

  75. abs

    September 24, 2016 at 1:05 pm

    ok mark, i will try again, but this is not a difficult concept.

    the papers have been peer-reviewed, however this Richards fellow has taken quotes from them and misuses these quotes to infer that solar activity alone, not human activity, is causing warming.

    it is telling that the studies he cite do not conclude with, “therefore this evidence demonstrates climate change to be NOT due to human activity” .

    he has an Associate Degree in Civil Engineering at Vermont Technical College and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineeriing. he details nothing that would allow an understanding that he is equiped to review the cllimate science.

    this is exactly how the denier movement operates. cite scientific studies but claim they conclude something other than they do, and dazzle deniers with words such as ‘peer-reviewed’, ‘scientists’, ‘research’ etc

  76. Kim Peart

    September 24, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Re: 74 ~ The main game is getting CO2 below 350 ppm, now racing well past 400 ppm, to keep temperature rise below 1.5C, now past 1C.

    This will take a huge volume of energy to do the work.

    The only place I can see that volume of energy being abvailable is from the Sun, with solar power stations in space, which will also allow industry to be launched beyond Earth, allowing a sunshade to be built to cool the Earth.

    When the real game is being tackled, then it will be possible to inspire everyone on Earth to live green, but un til that happens, people will despair at the rising levels of greenhouse gases inb the air, making the planet hotter, sending us to hell on Earth.

    The work required to secure the main game will overwhelm all science denial, as a whole new way is opened.

  77. Keith Antonysen

    September 24, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    mark h

    When Powell et al studied peer reviewed journal research articles in 2013 and 2014 he found there were 24,000 articles published. Only a handful were published by skeptical scientists.

    As abs has stated you need to provide references in a way that can be easily located. To illustrate the point, I typed Sunkara and Tiwari into Google Scholar, a result:


    If you provide a quote from a source, then the quote can be accessed by picking up the quote and use google to find the article.

    But, please show through experiment that CO2 and light do not react to support your view.
    I’ve mentioned Eunice Foote (about 1856).
    Simple experiments have been completed in High Schools.
    Mythbusters have provided an experiment.
    Thin Ice have provided a more sophisticated experiment.
    The 11 year ARM study was conducted in the natural environment.

    As stated earlier, deniers are all over the place in relation to climate science, contradicting one another. But, they are unable to provide experiments that show the most fundamental concept of climate change is wrong.

    So the challenge is to provide an experiment supporting your views.

  78. Keith Antonysen

    September 24, 2016 at 3:17 pm


    I know you have been pushing reflecting sunlight via satellite for some time. If a decision was to be made now, it is unlikely to happen within 10 years.
    Another solution that has been experimented with is to sequester CO2 into the soil, the results are not looking good at present. Professor Kevin Anderson expresses huge concern in relation to the lack of any programs to reduce carbon; IPCC safest predictions are based on sequestering carbon in one way or another.

    As individuals we can walk more when only a short distance needs to be traversed, keep catching airlines to an absolute minimum, grow our own food, plant trees and shrubs where possible, use public transport where possible, drive more slowly, eat less meat, try and buy local products even if more expensive, write to politicians.

    I believe that people and Agencies paid by fossil fuel companies to create doubt are nothing but hired killers. Those who present themselves as deniers on Tassie Times are victims like the rest of us of fabrication.
    There is no consistent thread running through denier arguments, many are contradictory. Some arguments based on blatantly altering graphs (Monckton).

    The summer of 2016 has caused many deaths, suicide in India of farmers was not included in the reference from an Insurance Journal. Nor was the very recent Typhoon Meranti, or the huge fires in Canada:


  79. Jon Sumby

    September 24, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    From 2007:

    Global warming versus economy: Economy wins

    From 2008:
    Can the world survive China?

  80. Jon Sumby

    September 24, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    From 2009:
    World fisheries must prepare for climate change

    From 2010:
    Sir John Beddington: Food Crisis, Population Growth and other issues…

  81. TGC

    September 24, 2016 at 7:37 pm

    #78 Neither does there appear much in the way of concensus on TT amongst those who declare-‘we believe in person-made climate change’
    I guess that’s because each ‘believer’ needs to trump another- whereas ‘deniers’ just give a shrug.

  82. Keith Antonysen

    September 24, 2016 at 8:27 pm


    The binding cord amoungst those who believe in climate change is that man has an impact on climate. Carbon emissions have an impact.
    The forcing in the atmosphere between CO2 and radiated infrared can be shown through experiment. Physics upholds climate change through the laws of thermodynamics. There is a consensus in regard to that amongst those who support science on TT. Carbon is not the only greenhouse gas.

    Those who deny do not have a fundamental principle of science that they can go to that underpins their opinion. Logic does not uphold what deniers are saying without such a binding principle.

    Please provide an experiment that shows we are wrong about the forcing of CO2.

  83. Kim Peart

    September 24, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    Re: 78 ~ I was able to examine the space options from 1976 and am aware of what was possible then, which would have included making a transition from carbon energy to solar power by building solar power stations in space.

    Carbon energy won the power debate and managed to kill of the space solar power option, so we got a carbon crisis that left unchecked, will deliver a dead Earth.

    I am deeply concerned that the global conservation movement were in part diverted by carbon energy propaganda, and instead of supporting the space power option in the 1970s, focused on the Earth alone, which simply allowed carbon energy to do their dirty work.

    Knowing this and seeing what is happening now, I fear a deeper level of denial is now the greatest risk to life on Earth.

    I urge anyone who give a damn about life, who love this Earth, to understand what is possible and the only way to deal with the carbon crisis, which is to get back to the space option to be able to win back a safe Earth.

    Our survival is on the line and that must be dealt with.

    By striking at the heart of the carbon crisis with the power of the Sun harvested in space, and all that can follow, we will generate the hope that will inspire green Earth action, because the plan includes a bloody minded determination to survive.

    We can win the Earth and space futures.

    By floundering on the Earth alone, we lose the Earth and the space option.

  84. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    September 25, 2016 at 12:37 am


    1. It is simple enough to notice  that the observational data of the global atmospheric temperature (as measured by satellites and ballons) doesn’t match what is predicted by the majority of the climate models for the period 2000-2015. The tropospheric data shows that the warming trend  (the warming of the atmosphere) that existed in the last two decades of the 20th century has levelled off since then. The past 15 or so years DO NOT show a downwards nor an upwards trend in the global atmospheric temperature. Some climate scientists are claiming that the “missing heat” has gone into the oceans.

    2.  Further, the theoretically expected hot-spot (as predicted by the mathematical computer models) in the troposphere over the tropics has not been observed by the satellites and the balloon measurements. Thus, the mathematical models of the climate do not fully capture the complex non-linear and chaotic dynamics of the many variables that are involved. That is basically the essence of the argument by some of the prominent university employed researchers who are considered to be  the ‘deniers’. I am referring to Prof John Christy, Dr Roy Spencer and  Prof Judith Curry. It is my scientific opinion that these three active and university employed climate researchers have a valid scientific argument because they are comparing the observed data against the mathematical computer model predictions.  I do not need to be a climate scientist in order to appreciate the good application of the scientific method. The satellite data and the balloon data deviates significantly (from year 2000 onwards) from the average prediction of the mathematical models. As simple as that!

    3. Thus, climate scientists do not have a full grasp of how the Earth’s climate will respond to the rising levels of CO2. Even so, the scientific data does show that there is a link between the rise of CO2 and the rise in the global surface temperature.  Perhaps the ocean is taking in more heat than is predicted by the models. If that is the case then the net effect is that the Earth is warming. Sooner or later the troposphere will feel the effect.

    4. I do not consider myself as being on either side of the debate. I have a pretty good scientific understanding of the physics of IR absorption  by greenhouse gases (and the widening of the CO2 IR absorption spectrum) and its implication on surface and the atmospheric temperature but am not well read in the field of the climate change. I see myself as straddling along a curve that sits somewhere between the satellite data and the average of the computer predictions. Thus, it is my opinion that we need to be concerned about the increasing rate of CO2 emissions by the burning of the fossil fuels. The planet Venus is a great example of what happens to the surface temperature with very high levels of CO2.

  85. Trees

    September 25, 2016 at 2:06 am

    Green voters they wished to appease
    So they put in a big mob of trees
    Along came a fire
    That turned all to a pyre
    But the managers still got their fees

  86. Got Me a Distraction

    September 25, 2016 at 2:11 am

    Distracted by this climate data, something else is going to sneak up and hit us on the back of the head.

  87. Jon Sumby

    September 25, 2016 at 8:11 am

    #84, Peter, you are out of date, the tropospheric hot spot has been found.

    ‘My colleague Nidhi Nishant and I have now analysed the radiosonde data yet again, and we found a tropical warming profile even closer to that expected. The fastest warming was at an altitude of about 12 km, and averaged 0.25C per decade – much faster than at the surface (0.14C per decade).

    This means that the troposphere is warming around 70-80% faster than the surface. So, far from being absent, this tropospheric warming is at least as strong as predicted by the average climate model, which predicted that the troposphere would heat 64% faster than the surface.’

    Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found

    Peter, the hiatus is not particularly relevant, the Earth did not stop warming. In similar periods in the past, the planet cooled by 0.3 to 0.4 degC, this has not happened this time. In fact the trend is upward and hotter. 2015 was the hottest year on record and 2016 is predicted to be hotter.

    Cast your eye over this graph. Can you spot the hiatus?


  88. Kim Peart

    September 25, 2016 at 8:47 am

    Senior climate scientist James Hansen began his career at NASA with the study of Venus, then moved onto Earth studies there when he saw a problem for the future of the Earth.

    After decades of investigation, Hansen concluded that with CO2 above 350 ppm, we will send Earth conditions toward becoming a second Venus.

    Earth will become a second Venus one day, as the Sun is getting slowly but steadily hotter, but by causing greenhouse gases to rise, we are running the risk of being the killers of the Earth, the murderers of life, the deniers of a future for our children.

    When the brutal truth is examined, it is very hard to see how human behavior is not like that of murder-suicide.

    CO2 in the air is now racing beyond 400 ppm, which will lead to a future temperature rise well above the present 1C rise, which can only be higher as CO2 goes higher.

    The melting of the Arctic is a rather big fat cannery in the carbon mine of Earth, where more greenhouse gases are being released from melting permafrost.

    On the basis of the precautionary principle, if we value life and survival, we have enough signs of trouble to work with.

    Rather than wait until it is way too late and environmental crisis leads to geopolitical turmoil that slides into conflict and nuclear madness, we can get serious about the needs of survival.

    The Syrian civil war should be quite the warning for us of what can happen.

    See comments above for a plan of action, which has been sitting there and available since the 1970s.

    It is a tragedy that all who should have known better have ignored this plan since it became possible in the 1970s.

    Better to be cautious and survive, than to be wishful and fail.

  89. Keith Antonysen

    September 25, 2016 at 12:08 pm


    Sadly, Oceans have been warming.

    A feature called the “blob’ has reappeared off the West Coast of the USA; it had been expected with the advent of the last El Nino that the extreme warmth of the blob would have disappeared.

    The Gulf of Mexico has been very warm and seen to be part of the reason Louisiana was so extensively flooded.
    The East Australian Current has been warm for a number of years, displayed by marine species being seen off Tasmania usually found in waters further North. Algal blooms have become a concern off the East Coast of Tasmania for a few years. The same principle of marine species moving has been noticed in other marine environments around the Earth.

    Coral reefs around the planet have been impacted by Ocean warming, not just the Great Barrier Reef.

    Some of the strongest Typhoons ever recorded have happened over the last few years an indication of warm tropical waters (Haiyan, Winston, Meranti). Recently there have been calls to add a category 6 to the storm scale to more accurately define the super storms.

    The ability of the atmosphere to carry a greater amount of water vapour is a factor indicating the climate is warming.

    In my first post I gave an indication of the volume of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean; the provisional figure for 2016 is in, and the final figure will be about 4.4 milliom km3 (rounded up). So, at this stage we can say that around 12,300 million km3 of sea ice volume has been lost since 1979. The average thickness of the sea ice is a scary 1.09 metres provisionally (PIOMASS).
    Satellite photos show melt ponds on the East Antarctic ice shelf.
    Climate scientists have persistently stated that climate change would be greatest at the Poles.

    Modelling of inferred temperature by satellites is up too Mark 6.


    In relation to computer modelling, when back modelling is completed without including CO2, the results are out of tune with observed results.
    When CO2 is included the computer models are in tune with what has been observed.
    Incidentally, ExxonMobil used modelling decades ago for the purpose of ascertaining when it would be possible to begin to explore the Arctic Ocean for fossil fuel. The results suggested now.

  90. davies

    September 25, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    This comic is based on the hockey stick. Here are just some of the hundred plus scientist comments, of which many think that AGW is real, on the hockey stick:

    Today most scientists dismiss the hockey stick – Dr Madhav Khandekar

    A lot of the data sets he uses are shitty – Prof Wallace Smith Broecker

    If you want to claim that you are engaging in science, the programs are in your possession and you will not release them, then you are not a scientist – Prof Darrel Ince

    Normally this would be considered as a scientific forgery – Prof Atte Korhola

    I am not forced to assume good faith of criminals and the people who don’t follow the rules of scientific integrity – Dr Lubos Motl

    Scientists like Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process – Dr Hans von Storch

    The greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist – Prof Harold Lewis

    It’s time to let Michael Mann sink or swim on his own – Dr Judith Curry (on his damage to science)

    The Mann curve does not hold anymore…It’s not falsifiable, so it’s not science – Prof Vincent Courtillot

    It should never have been singled out…and been promoted to such a position of superiority – Prof Richard Peltier

    Reply to Mann: ‘I think you were sloppy and unethical. I also think AGW is real’ ‘It has never been replicated because you can’t without access to original data and algorithms. So it’s junk.’ – Prof Michael Liebreich

    The panel’s decision (IPCC) to emphasize the hockey stick so strongly “was a colossal mistake…” – Dr Jerry Mahlman (this guy coined the phrase ‘hockey stick’)

    The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell’s Ministry of Information – Prof William Happer

    The blade of the hockey stick could not be reproduced using either the same techniques as Mann and Jones or other common statistical techniques – Prof David Legates

    The behaviour of Michael Mann is a disgrace to the profession – Dr Hendrik Tennekes

    We know that the hockey stick graph is fraudulent – Dr Michael R Fox

    Mann’s hockey stick has indeed been substantially discredited – Dr Hamish Campbell

    Another hundred or so scientist quotes can follow or with the same withering disregard for both the science and scientist behind the hockey stick.

    If you cannot admit to the severe problems of the hockey stick graph then how can we trust you on any other scientific results you want to promote?

  91. Keith Antonysen

    September 25, 2016 at 7:59 pm

    Why tackle Dr Mann when independent earlier and subsequent research back up Dr Mann?

    Ljungqvist completed a study in 2010 (Mann 2008) he has been completely misrepresented by Monckton; but, Ljungqvist has stated:

    “Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

    I tried to follow up on your first reference to Dr Madhav Khandekar.
    I googled just his name and came up with: he is a retired Meteorologist, he has received accolades from the Heartlands Institute and allegedly has been paid by them. Heartlands is an extreme right wing Agency, any association with them takes away any credibility. Heartlands tried to squash the science relating to smoking.

    A short film clip to give an overview of past and present temperatures:


    During the Medieval Period, davies, what was the temperature of the US?

    Which peer reviewed journal has Dr Madhav Khandekar been published in relation to climate change where he displays his expertise in paleoclimate?

  92. Jon Sumby

    September 25, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    #90, davies, this is 20 years ago, the science has moved on. The hockey stick graph was the first attempt at such a reconstruction. So it got a lot of attention and was attacked by deniers in the pay of oil and coal, several of whom appear in your list.

    In the last 20 years more than two dozen independent research groups have put out research that validates and refines this first attempt at this reconstruction. They all support the basic structure of the hockey stick graph while improving the data quality, like this one: “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia”, Nature Geoscience, 6 (5): 339–346.

    Your quotes are years old and about the first attempt to make such a climate reconstruction. The science has confirmed the hockey stick graph and improved the quality and accuracy of the reconstructions.

    In other words; ‘Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.’

    Have a look at some of the other reconstructions shown on that page. Particularly the 16 reconstructions composite, overlaid with the measured temperature since the 1880s.

  93. Kim Peart

    September 26, 2016 at 10:03 am

    Should we wonder what the role of the human tool-maker is in Nature?

    This is not so much purpose as function.

    The first stars produced heavier elements so that rocky planets like Earth could form, where life could begin and expand to the brim of the atmosphere.

    Those first stars served a purpose in Nature, so we can also wonder what our purpose is in Nature.

    For the powerful momentum of evolution to expand life beyond Earth, a new method is called for.

    Is this new method the emergence of a tool-maker that can build the way to take life beyond a planet.

    For tool making to work, old bonds of instinct had to be loosened, so resources could be used.

    A key resource is fossil fuel, but used too much and too long, it is a lethal cocktail for life.

    If the human tool-maker had run with Nature beyond Earth in the 1970s, when this became possible after the success of the Moon missions, then there could have been a shift from fossil fuel to the power of the Sun with solar power stations in space.

    Foolishly, we kept burning fossil fuel on Earth, instead of using carbon energy as a transition fuel to the power of the Sun in space.

    So we can now wonder if we are retarding our evolution, because we are not realising our full potential as a celestial civilization.

    If we had acted on the next step in evolution in the 1970s, we would be a much more advanced society now, and would have avoided the carbon problem.

    If the human tool-maker’s role in Nature is not happening, have we become an evolutionary dead-end in the race for survival.

    If we wake up, we may have time to act, to invest in survival.

    We have to get very smart now, to overcome 4 decades of clinging to the cradle and carbon nappy bombing the nursery, when we should have been investing in celestial maturity.

    If this is the main game before us, the game that determines whether we survive or fail, then we need to know that.

    Our inaction on the main game to date has delivered a hotter Earth.

  94. TGC

    September 26, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    So 392- “The science has moved on (from 20 year’s ago” Others have suggested the science of 20 year’s ago was ‘fixed’ and further debate/doubt on ‘climate change/causes was unnecessary.

  95. TGC

    September 26, 2016 at 11:16 pm

    #93 “If we wake up, we may have time to act, to invest in survival.” The warmists say it’s already too late- Go back to sleep.

  96. Kim Peart

    September 27, 2016 at 7:18 am

    Re: 95 ~. Why?

    Imagine the wealth that can be created with the power of the Sun, with solar power stations in space, processing resources gathered around the Solar System, including from Earth.

    Anyone would have to be very asleep, nearly brain dead, not to be able to imagine that.

    With the power of the Sun we can deal with any problem on Earth, such as extracting excess carbon from the air (any action is work and requires energy), and processing extracted carbon into a useful resource for Earth and space industries (with the heat of the Sun in space, any material imaginable can be made), and the closer a facility is to the Sun, the more heat there is.

    With industry in space, we would be able to build an adjustable sunshade to cool the Earth, which will be an excellent investment in life as the Sun gets hotter, extending the tenure of life on Earth by billions of years.

    The industrial skills needed to function in space, which is a high radiation environment, are exactly what we will need to survive on Earth, should environmental crisis slide into nuclear madness and we be trapped in a nuclear winter.

    Even there, we can plan for survival and any future.

    To survive, we need to imagine life.

    I predict that it will be learning to function in space that will lead to the maturing of the human species, such as the needs of security in space leading to work toward peace on Earth.

    The best part of all, is that the moment we decided to create a stellar economy, moving on from fossil fuel on Earth and investing in solar power in space, the benefits will begin to flow on Earth as the wheels begin turning toward infinite economic benefit.

    The hope generated in the hearts of people will also inspire mass mobilisation to deal with all environmental problems on Earth.

    Maybe we need to invest in alarm clocks of hope, to wake people up, even from the coma induced by carbon energy propaganda since the 1960s.

    What would you add?

  97. davies

    September 27, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    The hockey stick is just as relevant now as it was then. It is the ‘Rosetta stone’ that hundreds of studies subsequently used as their starting point. Heck this cartoon has copied the hockey stick!

    So it is vitally important for the warmist cause not to admit that the hockey stick graph is fatally flawed.

    I note you query the credentials of only one scientist thus far. Dr Madhav is a meteorologist and climatologist. A research scientist with Environmental Canada for 25 years. Editorial board member of the Journal of Natural Hazards, and former editor of Climate Research. Member of the American Geophysical Union, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. Former World Meteorological Organisation lecturer in meteorology. MSc in Statistics from Pune University, PhD in Meteorology from Florida State University.

    Now I admit his accomplishments aren’t up there with a Judith Curry or a Hans von Storch but it is still pretty impressive. Excuse the unscientific term, but he craps on the vast majority of people the warmists like to quote.

    But you still hang on to the hockey stick so I provide more quotes. And there are plenty more after this.

    “Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data…Yet that’s exactly what he did” – Prof Philip Stott

    “The hockey stick is broken” – Dr Bo Christiansen

    “They used a brand new statistical technique that they made up” – Robert Way

    “It therefore seems crazy that the hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics” – Prof Ian Jolliffe

    “The most famous example of what I consider outright cheating was Michael Mann’s famous “Hockey Stick” graph…This graph has had an amazing existence, rising from the ashes each time someone points out a fatal flaw. Why? Because the IPCC desperately needs this graph” – Dr Gordon Fulks 2012.

    “The statistical analysis underlying the hockey stick was thoroughly trashed” – Prof G Kornelis van Kooten

    “It is strange that the climate reconstruction of Mann passed both peer review rounds of the IPCC without anyone ever really having checked it” – Dr Rob van Dorland

    “I never like it that the 2001 IPCC report pictured Mann’s without showing alternates…Mann is an outlier” – Dr Curtis Covey

    “Even I fell for this hockey stick” – Prof Fritz Vahrenholt

  98. davies

    September 27, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    Classic! Here we are discussing the junk science of the hockey stick and up pops an even more outrageous peer-reviewed piece of confection.

    The Daily Mail link to Snyder’s paper (remember it’s peer-reviewed) just before the Comments start should stay there forever just to show the general sloppiness of science papers that get the tick of approval from it’s peers just because it’s conclusions agree with their own feelings…I mean opinions.

    The article below can be found on the ABC site…

    Climate change study accused of erring on rising temperature predictions
    Prominent climate scientists have issued a warning that a paper published in the influential journal Nature sensationalised climate change predictions and used an “incorrect calculation”.

    “The ratio that gave that, which was the very high sensitivity that she calculates, comes from a correlation between temperature and the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the ice cores, but as we all know, correlation does not equal causation.

    “And in this case, the causation is the orbital wobbles of the Earth’s climate that are controlling both the temperature and the carbon dioxide at the same time and so that’s giving you an exaggerated view of how carbon dioxide affects temperature directly.”

  99. Chris Sharples

    September 27, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    Note davies technique (e.g., at #97, # 98, which is quite standard for deniers:- bombard us with dozens of unreferenced quotes from supposed scientists nobody has heard of. By the time you’ve located the source of each quote, and discovered it to be garbled, taken completely out of context or otherwise mis-representative of what was actually said in the first place, and/or that the source has no relevant expertise in the first place, or whatever, you’ve wasted hours of your time. Then davies will bombard you with still more of the same dubiously-sourced material, of which there is ample on denier websites.

    I’ll bet what davies (whoever that is anyway) doesn’t do is talk to real climate scientists who actually have worked and published in the field for decades. And that isn’t hard to do in Hobart since we have quite a concentration of world-leading climate scientists right here at IMAS, ACE-CRC, CSIRO Marine Division, Antarctic Division and other areas in UTAS.

    I’ll bet davies (whoever that is) has never asked any of them about the Hockey Stick! Much better to just rely on unreferenced context-free source-unknown quotes from one’s denier mates!

  100. TGC

    September 28, 2016 at 12:15 am

    And #99 – it is even much easier to believe
    “she’ll be right, mate”- as it most certainly will be. (Do I need a peer review for that?)

  101. mark h

    September 28, 2016 at 1:06 am

    Cassy O’ConnorMP revealing on Twitter that she pays more attention to David Suzuki over Judith Curry when it comes to climate science. And she is proud of it. Simply ridiculous!

    Cassy O’Connor ‏@CassyOConnorMP Sep 23
    @DMoorhen @PriceofOil @DavidSuzukiFDN …
    I follow lots of climate types – it’s my job – but I’ll heed @DavidSuzuki over Curry any day.
    0 retweets 0 likes

  102. Dr Peter Lozo

    September 28, 2016 at 2:37 am

    #98 Davies

    There is nothing unusual about a scientific paper being criticised by other experts in the field upon the paper’s publication. That is how science moves forward. Whilst I can’t comment on the specific contents of the paper since I don’t work in that field, I can make some general comments.

    If the paper is found to contain a serious flaw then it will probably be retracted. What happens most often is that other experts who disagree with certain portions of the paper will submit a letter for publication so that their opinions are also subjected to scrutiny by other researchers. Sooner or later a general consensus will reached amongst the relevant scientific community. The challenge is now others to provide a valid scientific argument worthy of publication that will raise a serious doubt about the results in this paper

    Thus, I think that you are over-interpreting the significance of the first major online criticism of a recently published scientific paper.

  103. Keith Antonysen

    September 28, 2016 at 2:43 am

    Another source which places a clearer perspective in relation to the research davies wrote about at No 98.



    “But the conclusions the study’s author drew from that research—that even preventing any further increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could still leave the Earth doomed to a catastrophic temperature rise of up to 7 degrees Celsius (about 13 degrees Fahrenheit)—isn’t supported by the data, several top scientists said.

    “This is simply wrong,” said Gavin Schmidt, chief of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

    Just to emphasize, the issue was about if emissions were to stop now; the author of the new study had suggested temperature could still go up to 7C; whereas, generally 2C is the accepted increase in temperature.

    davies was jumping to an invalid conclusions with the ABC poorly referenced material he provided.

  104. phill Parsons

    September 28, 2016 at 11:35 am

    The deniers arrived but with nothing new to prove their point they now look very silly as another once in a so many years event takes out S.A.’s electricity system and then promises to deliver heavy rains to Tasmanian to match the outcomes for western Victoria and central NSW.

    The argument has moved from is it happening past what causes it to happen to how much will there be and can we do anything about it.

    Ignore the deniers and concentrate on getting something done. They can never provide the evidence you all seek or a cogent argument.

  105. abs

    September 28, 2016 at 11:36 am

    thank you Chris, I was spending a lot of time finding and researching these quotes, the context they were made in, the source they came from, the credentials of those who supposedly said them., and it is very time consuming.

    one amusing thing is that many quotes come from people who seem out of their depth or compromised, or from those who hold positions opposed from others on the list (ie some on davies list state that co2 does not cause warming and some say it does). it would be fun to seek comment and create a list of comments they make about each others’ positions 😉

    lets start with Prof G Kornelis van Kooten who believes in intelligent design and is a signatory to the
    An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming – Cornwall Alliance which states-

    We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

    We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant.

    so climate change = not real because God….

    Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt
    Member of the Board of Directors of Deutsche Shell AG with responsibility for chemicals, renewable energy, public affairs, environment, electricity, 2001 member of the supervisory board. He then worked many years for Vahrenholtk for RWE Innogy, Germany’s second-largest energy company as a manager in its oil and gas division. He acknowledges that he has not published any scientific research on the topic he wrote his book upon.

    The team at skeptical science detail many wrong statements and misrepresentations he has made


    Dr Madhav Khandekar

    According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Khandekar has published 19 pieces of research in peer-reviewed journals, mainly in the area of El Nino and climate.

    Many of his papers on climate change were published in the journal Energy and Environment , a journal which has been criticized for its peer review process and which is edited by global warming skeptic Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. A journal for the skeptics, it is often called. According to a search of WorldCat, a database of libraries, the journal is found in
    only 25 libraries worldwide. And the journal is not included in Journal Citation
    Reports, which lists the impact factors for the top 6000 peer-reviewed journals. Khandekar holds a position that co2 is good for the environment and that we should be increasing the level in the environment. He also reportedly was on a $1000 per month stipend from the Heartland Institute.

    Then there are those whose position on climate change is in direct contract to the skeptics, deniers listed, example, Dr Rob van Dorland, who co-authored this piece titled Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun in European Energy Review (the first paragraph below)

    Scientists working on climate on a daily basis must have been rather astonished by the recent interview with professor Fritz Vahrenholt published by European Energy Review (May 2, 2012). Vahrenholt, chief of RWE Innogy, self-proclaimed climate expert and co-author of the book Die Kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun), claims that “the contribution of CO2 to global warming is being exaggerated”. This claim, however, does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. We assess his ideas in the light of the scientific literature on the role of the sun versus other climate forcing factors. The dominant influence of greenhouse gases follows not only from their basic physical properties, but also from their “fingerprint” in the observed warming. The sun, in contrast, has not exhibited any warming trend over the past 50 years. The sun is thus not responsible for the warming seen during this period. Greenhouse gases in all likelihood are.


    to be continued….

  106. abs

    September 28, 2016 at 11:40 am


    All these quotes are interesting and informative, however the elephant in the room is the Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ has been run through the scientific mill repeatedly and by the highest of authorities and has come out relatively unscathed. Specifically by the US National Academy of Sciences who conducted a very comprehensive assessment of temperatures over the last 2000 years following direction from Congress. There were some minor caveats and the statistical failings were noted, yet they had little effect on the overall result.

    Note, davies, that this is an exceptionally detailed review of Mann’s work by a panel of over 20 experts with their extensive report reviewed by 13 experts.


    Below is part of their conclusion

    The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years


    so the bottom line is, davies, there is the internet with tidbits from denier websites, then there is authoritive validation through scientific method.

  107. Jon Sumby

    September 28, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    #98, davies, you are such an alarmist. What you’re talking about does happen and is part of the process.

    Roy Spencer, the denier you are fond of had a paper published that was such bad science and so wrong that it was immediately retracted and the editor the journal that published resigned in disgrace.

    Albert Einstein once reviewed and supported the publication of some research that, when published, was retracted as soon as other researchers pointed out that the formula used was wrong and the result invalid. The researcher had put a minus sign in one part of the formula instead of putting in a plus sign.

    When I worked at a journal I frequently rejected submitted papers. In a handful of cases where the submitted paper was on the edge of acceptance I sent them on to the editorial board for a second opinion. In all those cases the doubts I had were about the experiment design or the statistical analysis, not that the science was bad.

    ‘GAVIN SCHMIDT: I think it’s unfortunate both for the journal which, you know, is going to be accused of hyping, you know, sensational results without being scientific rigorous. I think it’s unfortunate for the author who’s really good work is being overshadowed by this particular error and it is unfortunate for the public because what you’re seeing is a very confused message that people are going to take away all sorts of different messages from.

    ELEANOR HALL: Dr Gavin Schmidt from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies ending Colin Cosier’s report.’

    Shock! Horror! davies, a real climate scientist says people like you will get confused and take away the wrong message and, you know, he’s right 🙂

  108. davies

    September 28, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    A bit of background to the US National Academy of Sciences Report. It is known as the North Report. It was set up by a AGW alarmist politician Boehlert in response to another politician Barton, a sceptic, setting up the Wegman committee to investigate the hockey stick.

    The Wegman panel was made up of three statisticians none of whom had any professional connection to paleoclimatology or the AGW debate. The North Panel was made up of eleven paleoclimatologists and two statisticians, most of whom had been professionally connected to the IPCC or the team behind the Hockey Stick, some were closely connected.

    So one neutral investigation and one stacked in Mann’s favour. How do we know it is stacked in Mann’s favour? He acknowledges it himself to Briffa in an email urging him to appear before it as a witness:

    “I think you really should do this if you possibly can. The panel is entirely legit[im]ate, and the report was requested by Sherwood Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in the whole Barton affair … The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Christy is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check.”

    But despite its AGW bias, when the North panel presented its report in June 2006 it acknowledged that the Hockey Stick’s depiction of temperatures before 1600 was invalid. It reported that the Hockey Stick depended on bristlecone pine proxies that “should be avoided for temperature reconstructions”. That its reliance on single validation statistics was unacceptable. That its short-centring methodology was biased, towards a hockey stick shape. That it used methodology that was “unconventional” and “problematical” such that it “introduced certain distortions”—that is, was wrong. And more. It concluded that: “Some of these criticisms are more relevant than others, but taken together, they are an important aspect of a more general finding of this committee, which is that uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated.”

    The above is from the Report you are proclaiming vindicated and validated Mann’s hockey stick!!! What did the Wegman Report find?

    The Wegman report identified a hard core of seven authors and a “social network” of forty-three authors with direct ties to Mann, and reported that this network had compromised independent research, perverted the peer review process, and so tied researchers to their public positions that they had become incapable of reassessing them. It criticised the team’s isolation from mainstream statisticians in other disciplines, and its grudging and haphazard release of the data required for verification of its findings. Most importantly it found that “the decentered methodology” used to produce the Hockey Stick “is simply incorrect mathematics”, that the Hockey Stick has “a validation skill not significantly different from zero”, and that its obliteration of the Medieval Warm Period and contention that the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium were “essentially unverifiable”.


    The hockey stick team attacked the Wegman report on the grounds that it was not peer reviewed, which was ridiculous since it was a peer review—a proper independent one by three of the most distinguished statisticians in the country. And they made maximum use of the wiggle room in the North report summary.

    Although it had validated McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticisms of Mann’s data selection and methodology in the body of the report, its brief was to form an opinion about the world’s temperatures over the last 2000 years, and the panel was not about to explicitly contradict the IPCC in this regard. It got around the conflict of interests by deciding that there was evidence other than Mann’s Hockey Stick that twentieth-century warming is “para-normal”. What they didn’t do, however, was to scrutinise that “other evidence” very carefully, because of the examples they presented, all bar one included bristlecone pines in their data sets, which they had agreed should not be used.

    So your defence of Mann is yep his hockey stick graph is crap but heh it has been verified by subsequent studies and reviews…

  109. abs

    September 28, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    oh davies, really…..
    the wegman report, completed by a statistician with NO experience in climate science, and his students. a report that was withdrawn from the journal Computational Data and Statistics Analysis (CSDA) because of plagerism, some from wikipedia (wegman later infered it wasn’t his fault because his student copied and pasted the stuff, OMG), a report that had close to 50% of references as padding (ie they were not cited in text), a report that came about in the most unconvential way by means of a request from a global warming skeptic Rep. Joe Barton, ,,,(i could go on). vs the report from a multidiciplinary team of experts in the relevant field as part of an investigation by the US National Academy of Sciences!!!!!

    for starters please provide references or sources to you ramblings.

    peer-reviewed, no, the wegman report failed peer-review (due to plagerism, from wikipedia…seriously, you can’t make this stuff up).

    BTW, how’s that reponse going for all those times I have requested you to comment upon how every authorative scientific association in the world holds that the AGW is real??

  110. Keith Antonysen

    September 28, 2016 at 5:07 pm


    Other research that came after, subsequently, following, a few years later; replicated Mann’s hockey stick concept.

    I have tried to follow up on some of your references and found them wanting.

    You still have not produced any experiments to give credence to your opinion.

    Your champion in the Senate, Malcolm Roberts can’t even get the laws of thermodynamics right (per Professor Jones).

  111. Jon Sumby

    September 28, 2016 at 9:26 pm

    #108, davies, you are misrepresenting me; ‘So your defence of Mann is yep his hockey stick graph is crap…’ Not a good look.

    I don’t think it was crap, it was good science and I think it was a very important piece of research.

    You seem to be fixated on research that has been confirmed by multiple research studies and has been refined and improved by other researchers over the last 20 years since it was published. Arguing about a paper published in 1998 and confirmed by other researchers since then is pointless.

    McIntyre and McKitrick’s paper was flawed:

    ‘Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data.’

    You can read about it in more detail here (with plenty of references to check out).

    But this is history. Global warming is happening faster, sooner, and stronger right now.

  112. Kim Peart

    September 29, 2016 at 9:37 am

    Re: 105-106 ~ A good survey and plenty of chances to chase up the trail.

    Two points I’d draw attention to.

    A warming Sun is a factor in what happens next, a matter highlighted by James Lovelock in his 2009 book ~ The Disappearing Face of Gaia.

    With the Sun now 35% hotter than at its birth 4.5 billion years ago and slowly but steadily getting warmer, set to expand to the orbit of the Earth in 5 billion years as a red giant (basis astronomy for a star like our Sun), there is an impact.

    To date Nature has been able to maintain a steady temperature for life, with drifts between hot and cold, using sophisticated methods which include sequestering carbon, because too much in the air makes the planet hotter.

    Lovelock warns that the Earth system can shift swiftly to a permanently hotter world, with the death of billions, where life around the tropics will be impossible.

    This shift will happen, because Nature will have been overwhelmed by a hotter world, as well as rising levels of CO2 in the sea, making the oceans acidic.

    A recent study by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies concluded that Venus was once more like Earth, with water and could have supported life.

    Whatever happened to Venus?

    Now the air is mostly CO2, rocks glow in the heat and lead can melt at the surface.

    That’s what CO2 can do.

    James Hansen suggests that with CO2 above 350 ppm (now racing beyond 400) we are in the process of bringing on an early death of the Earth.

    If we take the warning of Lovelock and the prediction of Hansen seriously, then we need a plan that will deliver human survival and win back a safe Earth.

    to be continued ~

  113. Kim Peart

    September 29, 2016 at 10:18 am

    Re: 105-106 continued ~ We need a philosophy that will inspire action for human survival and winning back a safe Earth.

    The Christian Earth-centric view came to a head with Galileo, daring to suggest that the Earth was in orbit around the Sun.

    Though science has predominated to the point of nuclear weapons, we are yet to know what we should do.

    I fear this reticence is an echo of the old Christian world-view.

    In the race to run away from religious philosophy, I wonder if an important message is being lost.

    In science we are presented with a birth of the Universe as a singularity that expands to infinity.

    The cosmic birth event is determined by a primal code of natural law.

    The laws of Nature do not evolve, but reveal their function through the forming of atoms, stars, planets, life and the emergence of a tool-maker who can build smart machines.

    So what happens next?

    A logical progression is for life to expand beyond Earth, but for this to happen, Nature requires a clever tool maker to do the work.

    The tool maker has arrived, but the expansion has been delayed.

    The expansion of life beyond Earth became possible in the 1970s, when atmospheric CO2 was passing 350 ppm, and when and the human presence on Earth was still sustainable.

    Expansion was physically possible in the 1970s and apparently, essential for Nature as determined by the primal code, so why didn’t it happen?

    Is this a failure of philosophy?

    Did the Earth-centric Christian view have a role to play?

    Many carbon industry tycoons are Christian, so would they have clung to the Earth for profit, with no alternative vision?

    Many politicians are Christian, so would they have clung to the Earth, with no alternative vision?

    Many conservations are Christian, so would they have clung to the Earth, with no alternative vision?

    If the way to assure human survival and win back a safe Earth is to run with Nature beyond Earth, then that would have to be the main game in town.

    If a philosophy can be defined from understanding the primal code of natural law and how it works through time and through our hands, this may be the vision that saves us from the greatest folly in human history ~ murdering a planet and all its life.

    The work of such a philosophy would begin with each individual, taking personal survival and the fate of the Earth seriously.

    When anyone argues to cling to the Earth, I am always left wondering if I am hearing or reading an echo of the Christian Earth-centric world view, where believers are required to wait on Earth for a saviour.

    When anyone gives up hope, I wonder if this is because they cannot get their heads out of an Earth-centreic world view originating in Christianity.

    If we need a philosophy built on understanding the primal code of natural law and how we need to run with Nature beyond Earth to avoid being in conflict with the primal code, then it would be helpful if we got serious about such a philosophy.

    Right now, we need a vision that inspires action, and we need action that will assure our survival and win back a safe Earth.

  114. Keith Antonysen

    September 29, 2016 at 11:32 am

    No 113, Kim

    There is a philosophy working against us at present; truth is lying and lying is truth. A leading exponent is Trump who very openly in the US press is being called a liar. The debate between Trump and Clinton was fact checked as it progressed. Trump was caught out a number of times; Clinton was also caught out, but far fewer times. There is much difference between telling lies already identified as such, and exaggerating points.

    Creating fear is one of the weapons Trump uses, it has been suggested that people who have a conservative mind set are more inclined to react to fear propaganda. The Dunning-Kruger effect is also an issue.


    Hyperlinks in the article provide extra information.


    “The Dunning-Kruger effect explains that the problem isn’t just that they are misinformed; it’s that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed. This creates a double burden.”


    “A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety. And a 2014 fMRI study found that it is possible to predict whether someone is a liberal or conservative simply by looking at their brain activity while they view threatening or disgusting images, such as mutilated bodies.”

  115. Chris Sharples

    September 29, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    Kim #113 :”The cosmic birth event is determined by a primal code of natural law. The laws of Nature do not evolve, but reveal their function through the forming of atoms, stars, planets, life and the emergence of a tool-maker who can build smart machines.”

    Woo woo! Kim, you’ve got the makings of your own religion here! Have you decided what to call it yet?

    Though personally I think I’ll stick with Pastafarianism: The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is still the only religion that has ever made a scrap of sense to me!

  116. Kim Peart

    September 29, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Re: 114 ~ writes ~ “There is a philosophy working against us at present; truth is lying and lying is truth.”

    When we cannot change the world, we can change ourselves.

    If we decide truth matters, then we can seek to be honest in our views.

    The carbon crisis results from living a lie, but finding out the truth to live is a mighty challenge.

    We can follow the trail of questions, and see what we find.

    If we don’t like what we find, we can still speak honestly about what we see.

    The only way a philosophy can work againat us, personally, is when we don’t walk our own truth.

    We can define the philosophy that works for us, leads to harmony with Nature, and be fearless in living our truth.

    Running with the mob was the way of the world, until we reached the carbon crisis.

    Now we know we must stand and be different.

  117. Kim Peart

    September 29, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    Re: 115 ~ Is it OK to talk about science?

    Now we have a theory out of science that describes how the Universe began.

    One of the basics of the Big Bang theory, is that the cosmos was born some 13.8 billion years ago with all natural law in full working order.

    This is the primal code that determines what happens with atoms, stars, planets, evolution and the emergence of a tool maker that can create smart machines.

    The old style of creationist thinking saw humans as separate from Nature.

    If we are going to step the boards of science, and understand how we ended up in a carbon crisis, then it will help to understand how natural law works.

    Clearly, we are in the wrong story, or we wouldn’t have a carbon crisis.

    So what is the story that gets us into harmony with Nature, with natural law, with the primal code?

    The story from science also reveals an underlying realm, oft referred to as the multiverse, in which the Universe exists.

    There is not a lot to know about the multiverse at present, as it is beyond our science, which is confined to the study of natural law within our Universe.

    Mystery is certainly alive when it comes to science.

    If a philosophy can be draw from science, simply through telling the truth, then this would be no different to the honesty demanded of scientists.

    If there are ways to percieve the underlying realm that we exist in, then this would be entering the realm of mystery.

    Eastern disciplines with meditation have been delving into these mysteries for millennia.

    At the heart of meditation is getting a quiet mind, free of noise, which can focus on silence.

    I find this similar to science, where the Universe is described as being a single thing (singularity, or infinitely small point) that stretches to infinity, but still remains a single thing.

    For the East, to focus on a single thing, on silence, is the way to be open to the underlying reality.

    The highest experience we can have here, like happiness, may be the beginning there.

    Being open to the underlying reality and how we fit into this larger environment, this transcendent realm, may prove helpful in getting back into harmony with Nature.

    Exactly how we live in harmony with Nature will determine our survival, and whether we will win back a safe Earth.

    The Papuan story-teller, William Takau, would say ~ “Nature is culture. We must learn from Nature. When man sees himself as separate from Nature, he is doomed.”

  118. mark h

    September 29, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    2016 study from Cambridge Uni. Here is Wikipedia on the Author, Kelly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kelly_(physicist) ‘It is therefore surprising to discover that by all the various real world data considered here, the weather in the first half of the 20th century was, if anything, more extreme than in the second half.’


  119. Chris Sharples

    September 29, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    re #117

    Yep,a lot of that is sounding pretty much religious to me. You make several “woo-woo” assumptions in there, such as the notion that a (currently still hypothetical) underlying multiverse is beyond the realm of science.

    I disagree, that’s a very limiting assumption; just because you can’t see how such a hypothesis might be tested scientifically doesn’t mean it cant be, it just means YOU can’t think how it might be. That’s your problem, not science’s. Somebody else might think how to test a multiverse hypothesis (e.g., by identifying some consequences of multiverses for certain characteristics of our universe, and then testing whether our universe does indeed have the predicted characteristics; and so on).

    For an alternative viewpoint to your quasi-religious notions that:
    -the Universe (or ‘Nature’) has a purpose (woo woo!)
    -that purpose is expansion (woo woo!), and that:
    -our purpose is to be natures tool for achieving that purpose (woo woo!)

    (….all teleologically naive clap-trap in my opinion….)

    …you could look at:
    Tas Times>Writers>Chris Sharples> Order emerges out of Chaos: the fundamental insight of science

  120. Kim Peart

    September 29, 2016 at 8:38 pm

    Re: 119 ~ The problem with Western thinking, is a sense of what is absolutely right, which has brought on global warming and a planet catastrophe.

    If we are in the wrong story, then we cannot expect the way that leads to harmony with Nature to be a variation on Western thinking, where bristling with nuclear weapons is embraced as normal defence.

    Since WWII Australia has relied for defence on that nuclear umbrella.

    I have read speculation about conditions in our universe reflecting the multiverse, but am not aware of any concrete conclusions.

    It is possible to conclude that there is a multiverse in which we and the Universe exist, but because the only gateway known beyond the Universe is the singularity at the beginning, which no information could travel through, we live in a locked room as far as science is concerned.

    That as many as 11 dimensions are needed for the Universe to exists, reveals the complex state of the cosmos.

    We cannot expect the Multiverse to be an extension of the Universe.

    Like the infinity symbol, it may be the opposite of anything we might imagine, beginning with zero and happoiness.

    Does the Universe have a purpose?

    Is the Universe a total accident?

    Observe the march of natural law, ordered to precision, and it has to be asked what is going on.

    Observe the behaviour of people, and it has to be asked why we have made such a mess of the place.

    What is the script that we should be performing to, so we get our play right?

    What is the story we should be in?

    It is Christian creationist thinking to imagine that we do not have an ecological role in the evolution and expansion of life.

    That is the mental trap that has become a dangerous threat to life on Earth.

    That is the religion of the West, that worships money and delivers death.

  121. Jon Sumby

    September 29, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    #118, mark h, if you want to read science do a search on “climate change csiro”, they have a lot of quality research you can explore.

    As for Kelly, that writing is not science. Omicsgroup is the publisher of predatory journals that practise advocacy science.

    ‘Another trend, related and equally worrisome, is the increasing frequency of publication of the results of flawed “advocacy research” that is designed to give a false result that supports a certain cause or position and can be cited by activists long after the findings have been discredited. The articles are often found in the predatory open-access journals.’


    Omics is a scam publisher with a well known bad reputation. I’m not surprised that Kelly published there and that the usual run of denier websites are trumpeting the result.

    Kelly works for a climate denying organisation, Global Warming Policy Foundation, that has been found to fraudulent in it’s activities and to fake information in it’s publications.

    ‘The Foundation hopes to create confusion about the science to undermine the case for climate change policies, in a clear echo of tactics used by tobacco companies to delay regulation of smoking.

    But the Charity Commission ruled last year that the Foundation had breached its guidelines because it pushes only a ‘sceptic’ line on the science of climate change, including through the insertion of fake headlines to ‘spin’ newspaper articles that it reproduces on its website.

    As a result, the Foundation set up a lobbying arm, the Global Warming Policy Forum, to circumvent charity regulations.

    However, the Foundation continues to disseminate inaccurate and misleading information about climate change through campaign pamphlets and newspaper articles.’

    Britain’s climate sceptics’ dishonest tactics need to stop
    (I’ve reached the TT link limit)

  122. Keith Antonysen

    September 30, 2016 at 12:48 am

    mark h

    The pragmatics of climate change are difficult to argue against.
    Already I have provided examples of experiments which display CO2 and light reaction, another example:


    I have challenged many deniers to provide experimentation giving credence to their views, none have been forth coming. Remember that experimentation is what provides credence to science

    I have mentioned Arctic sea ice volume, 16,900 km3 in 1979, 5,700 km3 in 2015, and around 4,400 km3 in 2016.
    The measures provide empirical data of something, what?

    The sea ice thickness of the Arctic Ocean has also decreased over the decades.


    ” Applying our method to the period 1975–2012 for the central Arctic Basin where we have sufficient data (the SCICEX box), we find that the annual mean ice thickness has decreased from 3.59 m in 1975 to 1.25 m in 2012, a 65% reduction. This is nearly double the 36% decline reported by an earlier study. These results provide additional direct observational evidence of substantial sea ice losses found in model analyses.”



    What is your explanation for the change in ice thickness?

    So please provide experimentation to underwrite your opinions, and explanations for the change in sea ice volume and thickness.

  123. Kim Peart

    September 30, 2016 at 11:18 am

    Re: 122 ~ Climate change denial will be drowned by reality, but knowing the reality, should we be focused in whether we are in the right story of life?

    If we are living the wrong story, then what is the right story and how do we get into it?

    The carbon problem is so huge, no small solution will work, with the main need now being direct extraction of excess carbon from the air, ASAP.

    Duelling with denialists may be a good way to avoid the challenge of healing the Earth, but may also become part of the problem, if it is not offering hope.

    Without hope on the table, denialists will be comforted with fantasy, and the denialists may simply dig in deeper, with no credible vision to work toward.

    If it is the lack of a vision, the lack of a plan of action, which is fuel for the denialist fraternity, and people will go there, rather than listen to greenwash with a vision vacuum.

    The real risk we face are minimalist solutions to the carbon crisis.

    It is the minimalists that need tackling, to define exactly what we need to do, and be getting on with it.

    I have issued a challenge in this thread for people who give a damn to meet and crunch facts, toward defining the story that we should be living, which will deliver a safe Earth.

    No takers yet.

    If we can define that story and inspire enough people on this planet to live it, that is the real work that must be done.

    All drafts of that story can be considered, as I have been doing since the 1970s.

    After examining all the facts, my personal conclusion is that a solution must include space development, or we will not get a solution.

    The space option was possible in the 1970s, which would have avoided the carbon crisis.

    The space option, I strongly suggest, is the only way now to fix the carbon crisis.

    Further delay simply allows the carbon crisis to grow to a tipping point, where swift change can cripple the Earth irreversibly.

    Scientists, like James Hansen, who have crunched these facts, do not expect humanity to survive such change.

    Survival is the key challenge we face.

  124. Chris Sharples

    September 30, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    #120 Honestly Kim your responses are obtuse and seem to mostly comprise endless restatements of your messianic notions. Don’t think I can be bothered any more.


  125. Kim Peart

    September 30, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    Re: 124 ~ Is it time to get serious about a working solution to the carbon crisis yet?

    If yes, what is that working solution?

  126. Chris Sharples

    September 30, 2016 at 7:01 pm

    #125 See #124

  127. Kim Peart

    October 1, 2016 at 5:51 am

    Re: 126 ~ It’s OK. I promice not to reply, if you would like to climb onto your soap box and say what needs to be done to win back a safe Earth. I am keen to learn. I follow the trail of questions.

  128. TGC

    October 1, 2016 at 10:07 pm

    Had it not been for ‘climate change’ the Bulldogs would not, most probably, have won the Grand Final
    It’s a theory some academic should be able to ‘prove’

  129. abs

    October 2, 2016 at 1:16 am

    dare you sully with your inconsequential piddlings, the magnificance that was the Doggies last Saturday past.

  130. Kim Peart

    October 2, 2016 at 7:49 am

    This report raises a dark detail about hydro power, making this clean green option less green and a little too dirty.

    “Scientists have discovered a new source of these gases — dams and reservoirs. A new study has determined these sources of usable water and hydroelectric power are contributing significantly to the amount of methane released in the atmosphere. By how much? Researchers from Washington State say the methane from dams and reservoirs is the equivalent of roughly 1 gigaton of carbon dioxide a year — that’s 1.3 percent of all greenhouse gases produced by humans.”
    Scientists Found a Significant New Source of Greenhouse Gases ~ Futurism

    Now there is a good reason to resore Lake Pedder.

    If the nations got busy with space based solar power, a 24-7 unlimited power source would be established, which would reduce the need for hydro power and help cut carbon emissions.

    Space based solar power would also provide the level of energy needed to diretectly extract excess carbon from the air, and process extracted carbon into a useful resource for Earth and space industries.

    Space based solar power would also provide the level of energy needed to desalinate any volume of ocean water and pump the liquid gold to any location, which would reduce the need for irrigation reservoirs, which also produce greenhouse gases.

    The article points out how many gigatons of greenhouse gases a year are waiting to be dealt with, and added to every year at an accellerating pace.

    Atmospheric CO2 is now at 402 ppm, so does anyone know what temperature rise that will drive up when it does its full work of heating up the air?

    The lag time can be decades.

    It would be good to have a sliding scale of all greenhouse gases in the air and what temperature rise will be delivered each year with that volume.

    We would then be able to see how hot our future on Earth will become, and how soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top