australian institute of physics (vic branch) education committee could the ‘climate sceptics’ be...

Australian Institute of Physics (Vic Branch) Education Committee

Could the ‘Climate Sceptics’ be Right?Could the ‘Climate Sceptics’ be Right?

Latest revision: 28 Mar 2010

This ppt is not complete, but has been put on This ppt is not complete, but has been put on vicphysics in order to provide this material for vicphysics in order to provide this material for use by teachers and others who may need to use by teachers and others who may need to counter the all to prevalent denier arguments.counter the all to prevalent denier arguments.

Additional ideas welcome!Additional ideas welcome! Contact us at Contact us at


Could the ‘Climate Sceptics’ be Right?Could the ‘Climate Sceptics’ be Right?

Keith Burrows


This is a This is a preview versionpreview version of two different presentations we are of two different presentations we are in the process of preparingin the process of preparing

1. A ‘Quick reference’ set of points for use in another 1. A ‘Quick reference’ set of points for use in another presentation when denier points come up. Hyperlinks will take presentation when denier points come up. Hyperlinks will take you to a set of quick answers to common points.you to a set of quick answers to common points.

2. A fuller discussion of the common misconceptions to be used 2. A fuller discussion of the common misconceptions to be used as a stand alone presentation or in conjunction with others.as a stand alone presentation or in conjunction with others.

PLEASE SEE WEBSITE FOR UPDATED VERSION OF THIS PPTPLEASE SEE WEBSITE FOR UPDATED VERSION OF THIS PPT

www.vicphysics.org ‘Teachers’ ‘Climate change’www.vicphysics.org ‘Teachers’ ‘Climate change’

28 March 2010 version

Common Misconceptions Common Misconceptions by Climate Change Deniersby Climate Change Deniers


‘‘Climate sceptics’ and ‘climate deniers’Climate sceptics’ and ‘climate deniers’

Climate scepticsClimate sceptics Scepticism is an important part of science. Scientists Scepticism is an important part of science. Scientists

always try to question and test their theories.always try to question and test their theories. Scientific sceptics discuss their questions with other Scientific sceptics discuss their questions with other

scientists through the peer reviewed journals.scientists through the peer reviewed journals.

Climate deniersClimate deniers Deniers take the supposed ‘debate’ to the public – Deniers take the supposed ‘debate’ to the public –

inappropriately. They avoid discussions with the inappropriately. They avoid discussions with the scientific community.scientific community.

Deniers express no doubt about their position – or they Deniers express no doubt about their position – or they would have to take action in case they are wrong.would have to take action in case they are wrong.

Some DeniersSome Deniers


Common Misconceptions (Deceptions?) Common Misconceptions (Deceptions?)

•Group 1 – It’s not really warmingGroup 1 – It’s not really warming

Is the world warming or cooling? What about the past?Is the world warming or cooling? What about the past?

Does it matter?Does it matter?

•Group 2 – Greenhouse gasesGroup 2 – Greenhouse gases

Are Are wewe really adding to the greenhouse effect? really adding to the greenhouse effect?

•Group 3 – The scienceGroup 3 – The science

Do we really know what’s going on?Do we really know what’s going on?

•Group 4 – DistractionsGroup 4 – Distractions

Irrelevancies that only confuse the issue.Irrelevancies that only confuse the issue.

GOGO

GOGO

GOGO

GOGO


Common Misconceptions Common Misconceptions

Group 1 – It’s not really warmingGroup 1 – It’s not really warming

1.1.It is getting cooler - or at least the warming has stopped.It is getting cooler - or at least the warming has stopped.

2.2.The Arctic sea ice is recovering back to normalThe Arctic sea ice is recovering back to normal

3.3.Antarctica is not warming and sea ice there has increased.Antarctica is not warming and sea ice there has increased.

4.4.The Middle Ages were warmer – it’s all sunspots.The Middle Ages were warmer – it’s all sunspots.

5.5.The climate is always changing.The climate is always changing.

6.6.A bit of warming will be good.A bit of warming will be good.

7.7.It’s not really getting warmer, it’s the heat island effectIt’s not really getting warmer, it’s the heat island effect

8.8.Sea levels are not rising, or have stopped rising.Sea levels are not rising, or have stopped rising.


Group 2 - Greenhouse gasesGroup 2 - Greenhouse gases

1.1.The extra COThe extra CO22 is not from fossil fuels. is not from fossil fuels.

2.2.COCO22 makes up a very small proportion of the makes up a very small proportion of the

atmosphere.atmosphere.

3.3.Water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than Water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.carbon dioxide.

4.4.More COMore CO22 will help plants grow better will help plants grow better

5.5.The COThe CO22 in the atmosphere is already saturated in the atmosphere is already saturated

Common MisconceptionsCommon Misconceptions


Common Misconceptions Common Misconceptions Group 3 - The scienceGroup 3 - The science

1.1.The warming is caused by natural cycles - Earth orbit, the Sun, The warming is caused by natural cycles - Earth orbit, the Sun, cosmic rays, etccosmic rays, etc

2.2.Climate models are just computer models which are not reliable.Climate models are just computer models which are not reliable.

3.3.Correlation between temperature and COCorrelation between temperature and CO22 levels does not prove levels does not prove

causation – anyway, COcausation – anyway, CO22 is going up & temperatures falling! is going up & temperatures falling!

4.4.Global warming just an unproven theory. ‘Science not settled’Global warming just an unproven theory. ‘Science not settled’

5.5.Many scientists disagree with the IPCC conclusions and anyway Many scientists disagree with the IPCC conclusions and anyway the IPCC is a political body.the IPCC is a political body.

6.6.Ice core data shows that COIce core data shows that CO22 rises after the temperature. rises after the temperature.

7.7.COCO22 absorption is saturated. absorption is saturated.


Common Misconceptions Common Misconceptions Group 4 - DistractionsGroup 4 - Distractions1.1.Past warming has been good for life.Past warming has been good for life.2.2.Technology will eventually solve the problem through Technology will eventually solve the problem through geoengineering or COgeoengineering or CO22 pull down. pull down.

3.3.Tackling climate change is economically dangerous.Tackling climate change is economically dangerous.

4.4.The increased COThe increased CO22 from the developing world will exceed any from the developing world will exceed any reduction the developed world can do.reduction the developed world can do.5.5.Australia’s total emissions are much less than China’sAustralia’s total emissions are much less than China’s6.6.People have been predicting global catastrophes forever and People have been predicting global catastrophes forever and none ever come true.none ever come true.7.7.In the 1970's they said we were approaching an ice age.In the 1970's they said we were approaching an ice age.8.8.Climate change has been taken up by left wing groups to attack Climate change has been taken up by left wing groups to attack capitalism.capitalism.9.9.The ‘hacked’ emails prove climate scientists cooked the data.The ‘hacked’ emails prove climate scientists cooked the data.


1-1 “It is getting cooler” “the warming has stopped”1-1 “It is getting cooler” “the warming has stopped”

The earth’s climate is influenced by many The earth’s climate is influenced by many factors. A time span of several decades is factors. A time span of several decades is needed to observe any trend.needed to observe any trend.

These claims rely on ‘cherry picking’ a These claims rely on ‘cherry picking’ a particularly hot year – 1998 the hottest year on particularly hot year – 1998 the hottest year on record.record.

But choose 1996 or 1997 – Then EVERY year But choose 1996 or 1997 – Then EVERY year since then has been hotter!since then has been hotter!

The eleven hottest years ever recorded were all The eleven hottest years ever recorded were all in the last 14 years in the last 14 years (HADCrut data)(HADCrut data)..


• Just need to look at the data!Just need to look at the data!* *2009 estimated



• Just need to look at the data!Just need to look at the data!



• (This is the one the deniers like!)(This is the one the deniers like!)



• This is the one Monckton likes! (See later)This is the one Monckton likes! (See later)



This is what the deniers do –



Annual temperatures are influenced by many factors Annual temperatures are influenced by many factors including solar radiation, ENSO, local effects, including solar radiation, ENSO, local effects, Volcanic activity etc.Volcanic activity etc.

The annual global warming trend is only about a tenth The annual global warming trend is only about a tenth of the yearly variation... of the yearly variation...


40 years


Typical yearly Typical yearly variationvariation

compared to compared to yearly yearly warming trendwarming trend


WEATHERWEATHER

CLIMATE CLIMATE CHANGECHANGE

Which is why Which is why we notice the we notice the weather more weather more than climate than climate change!change!



For this reason we should look at decade trends or For this reason we should look at decade trends or long term averageslong term averages

CSIROgraph

11 yearaverages



For this reason we should look at decade trends or For this reason we should look at decade trends or long term averageslong term averages


Which is more likely?Which is more likely?

OR



““Lord Monckton of Brenchley”Lord Monckton of Brenchley”


‘‘Other factors’ Other factors’ include the El Niño – include the El Niño – La Niña cycle La Niña cycle (ENSO)(ENSO)

1998 was an 1998 was an exceptionally strong exceptionally strong El Niño.El Niño.

2000 and 2008 were 2000 and 2008 were La Niña’sLa Niña’s

We are heading We are heading

upward again now upward again now ..



‘‘Other factors’ also include the Sun – red line & curveOther factors’ also include the Sun – red line & curve We should expect some cooling (We should expect some cooling (greengreen) to 2008 as both ENSO ) to 2008 as both ENSO

((blueblue curve) and Sun ( curve) and Sun (redred) are in a low phase.) are in a low phase. Problem will be when they go higher again in the next few years!Problem will be when they go higher again in the next few years!



A better indicator of ‘total Earth heat’ is the A better indicator of ‘total Earth heat’ is the Ocean Heat Ocean Heat Content AnomalyContent Anomaly. Most warming is accumulated in the oceans . Most warming is accumulated in the oceans and ice (62%):and ice (62%):

Global energy accumulation and net heat emission Nordell and Gervet




A better indicator of ‘total Earth heat’ is the Ocean Heat A better indicator of ‘total Earth heat’ is the Ocean Heat Content Anomaly. Here is one estimate:Content Anomaly. Here is one estimate:



And another from the CSIRO:And another from the CSIRO:

Ocean heat content is going up relentlessly!Ocean heat content is going up relentlessly! and another showing several different studies.... and another showing several different studies....



Here is a slide from Ashby – Note only 4 years (and a Here is a slide from Ashby – Note only 4 years (and a questionable source) questionable source)



Here is another four year graph of ocean heat content:Here is another four year graph of ocean heat content: We could imagine it’s droppingWe could imagine it’s dropping


But this is actually a small section of a larger graph!But this is actually a small section of a larger graph!

Another 4 year Another 4 year ‘‘cherry pick’cherry pick’

Actual trendActual trend


• A different approach is to measure the total energy coming in A different approach is to measure the total energy coming in from the Sun and the total being radiated out to space.from the Sun and the total being radiated out to space.

• If they are equal the Earth’s temperature will remain constant, If they are equal the Earth’s temperature will remain constant, but if not ...but if not ...



• By measuring reflected and emitted radiation, and comparing it By measuring reflected and emitted radiation, and comparing it to incoming solar radiation “to incoming solar radiation “scientists have concluded that scientists have concluded that more energy is being absorbed from the Sun than is emitted more energy is being absorbed from the Sun than is emitted back to space, throwing the Earth's energy "out of balance" back to space, throwing the Earth's energy "out of balance" and warming the planetand warming the planet.” *.” *

* National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (Washington, D.C.), The Earth Institute at Columbia University (New York), and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (California)



Footnote:Footnote:

““Some climate scientists are predicting that surface Some climate scientists are predicting that surface temperatures will remain static or even fall slightly over the temperatures will remain static or even fall slightly over the next few years, before warming resumes. Their predictions are next few years, before warming resumes. Their predictions are based largely on the idea that changes in long-term fluctuation based largely on the idea that changes in long-term fluctuation in ocean surface temperatures known as the Atlantic in ocean surface temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will bring cooler sea surface temperatures.”will bring cooler sea surface temperatures.”

Michael Le Page New Scientist 15 August Michael Le Page New Scientist 15 August 20082008

Let’s hope they are right – it may give us a little more time to Let’s hope they are right – it may give us a little more time to get our act together!get our act together!

The deniers have picked up this item – but forget the “The deniers have picked up this item – but forget the “before before warming resumes” bitwarming resumes” bit



Stop PressStop Press

A recent paper in AAAS Science Magazine showed A recent paper in AAAS Science Magazine showed that changes in the amount of water vapour in the that changes in the amount of water vapour in the lower stratosphere could have amplified warming in lower stratosphere could have amplified warming in the 1990’s and reduced it in the 2000’sthe 1990’s and reduced it in the 2000’s

Some deniers heard the bit about water vapour and not Some deniers heard the bit about water vapour and not the rest and have claimed that it’s water vapour not the rest and have claimed that it’s water vapour not COCO22 that is causing the warming. that is causing the warming.



Stop PressStop Press

““This doesn’t alter the fundamental conclusion that This doesn’t alter the fundamental conclusion that the world has warmed and that most of that warming the world has warmed and that most of that warming has to do with greenhouse gas emissions caused by has to do with greenhouse gas emissions caused by man” man”

Susan Solomon, climate scientist at NOAA and author Susan Solomon, climate scientist at NOAA and author of the paper.of the paper.


1-2 “The Arctic Sea Ice is recovering”1-2 “The Arctic Sea Ice is recovering”

1-2 “The Arctic Sea Ice is recovering”1-2 “The Arctic Sea Ice is recovering”

This is a “recovery”?This is a “recovery”?


1-3 “1-3 “Antarctica is not warming…sea ice has increasedAntarctica is not warming…sea ice has increased””



This little piece of This little piece of Antarctica has not Antarctica has not

warmedwarmed



Antarctic sea ice patterns changing:Antarctic sea ice patterns changing: decreasing in some areasdecreasing in some areas increasing in others.increasing in others.

Antarctic climate influenced by many factors:Antarctic climate influenced by many factors: Ozone hole – strengthens ‘polar vortex’ windsOzone hole – strengthens ‘polar vortex’ winds "We see a very mixed pattern of both melting "We see a very mixed pattern of both melting

and ice growth in the Antarctic," said Thorsten and ice growth in the Antarctic," said Thorsten Markus, head of NASA Goddard's Cryospheric Markus, head of NASA Goddard's Cryospheric Sciences Branch. "Changes in the cyclonic Sciences Branch. "Changes in the cyclonic pattern due to the ozone hole are one of the best pattern due to the ozone hole are one of the best explanations we have."explanations we have."



““The key is that The key is that warming temperatures can lead warming temperatures can lead to more stratified ocean layers” to more stratified ocean layers” Jinlun Zhang, oceanographer, University of WashingtonJinlun Zhang, oceanographer, University of Washington

Warming Warming

more evaporation more evaporation

more snow/rain more snow/rain

fresh water sits on top of salt water fresh water sits on top of salt water

less mixing of warm water currents less mixing of warm water currents

colder sea surface temperature colder sea surface temperature

more sea icemore sea ice



Flooded Sea Ice Turns Snow to IceFlooded Sea Ice Turns Snow to Ice Snow accumulates on sea ice Snow accumulates on sea ice

ice sinks lower ice sinks lower

waves wet surface waves wet surface

water freezes water freezes

increase in sea iceincrease in sea ice

See See What’s Holding Antarctic Sea Ice Back From What’s Holding Antarctic Sea Ice Back From Melting?Melting? physorg.com September 2nd, 2009 Adam physorg.com September 2nd, 2009 Adam Voiland (NASA) Voiland (NASA)


The climate is complex!The climate is complex! We understand a lot – but not all.We understand a lot – but not all. One small ‘paradox’ does not discount all theOne small ‘paradox’ does not discount all the

evidence of global warmingevidence of global warming



Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming1957 - 2007

NASA - GISS



Larsen Ice shelf31 Jan 2002

7 March 2002


1-4 “The Middle Ages were warmer”1-4 “The Middle Ages were warmer”

• Any evidence is anecdotal, and restricted to Any evidence is anecdotal, and restricted to specific regions.specific regions.

• Even if they were a little warmer that is Even if they were a little warmer that is irrelevant as the reasons for the current warmth irrelevant as the reasons for the current warmth are quite different.are quite different.

• The rate at which the temperature is currently The rate at which the temperature is currently rising is much greater than has been seen in any rising is much greater than has been seen in any historical time.historical time.

• The temperatures we are heading for are much The temperatures we are heading for are much hotter than any experienced in history. hotter than any experienced in history.



Typical denier 1990 graphTypical denier 1990 graph

1960’s!1960’s!

From “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (2006)also used by Plimer in Heaven+Earth



The IPCC 1990 graph (red) with later versionsThe IPCC 1990 graph (red) with later versions


Medieval warm period may have been about the same as recent averagesThe Rate of increase certainly was not.Where we are heading is very much higher.

Different colours are different determinations

Black line is thermometer records

2,000 years



20,000 years

Period of human history

Medieval warm



Medieval warm period was probably due to Medieval warm period was probably due to higher solar activity.higher solar activity.


MWMWPP

LIALIA


Modern warm period is Modern warm period is notnot due to solar activity. due to solar activity.



This decade has This decade has NOTNOT cooled as could be expected. cooled as could be expected.



1-5 “The climate is always changing.”1-5 “The climate is always changing.”

Yes! On the Yes! On the geologicalgeological scale it swings between scale it swings between ‘hothouse Earth’ and ‘snowball Earth’ ± >5°C‘hothouse Earth’ and ‘snowball Earth’ ± >5°C

On the On the historicalhistorical scale the changes have been scale the changes have been very minor – Medieval warm period, Little ice very minor – Medieval warm period, Little ice age for example: age for example: less than ± 1°Cless than ± 1°C

(actually only about (actually only about ±±½°C)½°C) Past changes have caused ‘mass extinctions’Past changes have caused ‘mass extinctions’ We don’t want to be the cause of the next one!We don’t want to be the cause of the next one!



Hothouse EarthHothouse Earth

Snowball EarthSnowball Earth

In the last In the last 500 million500 million years the climate has swung between years the climate has swung between ‘Hothouse Earth’‘Hothouse Earth’ and and ‘Snowball Earth’‘Snowball Earth’



So have sea levels!So have sea levels!



Ancient coastal terraces form when sea levels were higher



InterglacialsInterglacials


In the last In the last 1 million years1 million years the climate has swung between Ice the climate has swung between Ice Ages Ages (Snowball Earth)(Snowball Earth) and mild ‘ and mild ‘InterglacialsInterglacials’ as we have ’ as we have now.now.



But for the last 10 thousand or so years the climate has been very kind to humans! Variation only ±1°C max

InterglacialInterglacialInterglacialInterglacial

Period of human history



About 1000 yr ago: ‘Medieval Warm Period’ ~ same as 1960s. About 400 years ago: ‘Little Ice Age’ ~ about ½°C cooler.

MWPMWP

LIALIA



We do not want to go We do not want to go there!there!We do not want to go We do not want to go there!there!


MWPMWP

LIALIA



Even temperatures in the last interglacial would Even temperatures in the last interglacial would be a problem – a little warmer than last century.be a problem – a little warmer than last century.

SST =Sea SurfaceTemperature


during the last interglacial period when sea level peaked at around 6 metres higher than today6 metres higher than today. His findings suggest that at one point the sea rose 3 metres within 50 to 100 years3 metres within 50 to 100 years.”

““Paul Blanchon's Paul Blanchon's team at the National team at the National University of Mexico University of Mexico in Cancun has been in Cancun has been studying 121,000-studying 121,000-year-old coral reefs year-old coral reefs in the Yucatan in the Yucatan Peninsula, formedPeninsula, formed

July 2009


1-6 “1-6 “A bit of warming will by goodA bit of warming will by good””

Based on idea that the Medieval Warm Period Based on idea that the Medieval Warm Period was good for plant life.was good for plant life.

This is true, but the warming we are looking at This is true, but the warming we are looking at will be far more than that!will be far more than that!


±½°C±½°C


Mediaeval Warm PeriodMediaeval Warm Period

Little Ice AgeLittle Ice Age


Stern Review

Past Inter-glacialsPast Inter-glacials1°C – 2°C warmer1°C – 2°C warmerSea ~ 5 – 10 m higherSea ~ 5 – 10 m higher


Stern Review

Miocene:Miocene:3°C – 6°C warmer3°C – 6°C warmerSea ~ 20 – 40 m higherSea ~ 20 – 40 m higher


Stern Review

Eocene:Eocene:5°C – 8°C warmer5°C – 8°C warmerSea ~ 80 – 100 m higherSea ~ 80 – 100 m higher


Stern Review



Remember: Remember:

Human civilization has Human civilization has only ever experienced only ever experienced temperatures around plus temperatures around plus or minus ½°C from the or minus ½°C from the current temperature.current temperature.


1-7 “1-7 “It’s not getting warmer – it’s heat islandsIt’s not getting warmer – it’s heat islands””

Some claim that the temperatures have gone up Some claim that the temperatures have gone up only due to more buildings around weather only due to more buildings around weather stations – cities become ‘heat islands’.stations – cities become ‘heat islands’.

This effect has been well known to climate This effect has been well known to climate scientists and they have gone to great lengths to scientists and they have gone to great lengths to account for it.account for it.

Atmospheric warming is easy to see, but Atmospheric warming is easy to see, but actually plays a minor role in evidence for actually plays a minor role in evidence for global warming. Melting ice, ocean heat content, global warming. Melting ice, ocean heat content, changing weather patterns, moving ecosystems changing weather patterns, moving ecosystems are more reliable evidence.are more reliable evidence.



Temperature measurements by satellites are Temperature measurements by satellites are easily able to avoid cities.easily able to avoid cities.

The fastest warming has been in the Arctic – The fastest warming has been in the Arctic – hardly a place of many ‘heat islands’!hardly a place of many ‘heat islands’!

More detail on following slides ...



1) This effect has been well known to climate 1) This effect has been well known to climate scientists and they have gone to great lengths to scientists and they have gone to great lengths to account for it.account for it.

Anthony Watts project: classifying US weather Anthony Watts project: classifying US weather stations.stations.



NASA Corrected graphsNASA Corrected graphs



NOAA took his data and compared temperatures NOAA took his data and compared temperatures from all stations with that from only ‘good’ from all stations with that from only ‘good’ stations... stations...



2) Melting ice, ocean heat content, changing 2) Melting ice, ocean heat content, changing weather patterns, moving ecosystems are more weather patterns, moving ecosystems are more reliable evidence.reliable evidence.

Chacaltaya, Bolivia1940 0.22 km²1982 0.14 km²1996 0.08 km² 2005 0.01 km²



2) Total mass of glaciers is decreasing.2) Total mass of glaciers is decreasing.

Wikipedia



2) Ocean heat content: Holds vastly more heat 2) Ocean heat content: Holds vastly more heat than atmosphere. Steady upward trend.than atmosphere. Steady upward trend.

CSIRO studies



2) Changing weather patterns (last 3 years rainfall)2) Changing weather patterns (last 3 years rainfall)

Just as climate models predict.

1-7 “1-7 “It’s not getting warmer – it’s heat islandsIt’s not getting warmer – it’s heat islands””2) Changing Ecosystems: 2) Changing Ecosystems: Rosenzweig et.al analyzed Rosenzweig et.al analyzed data on 829 physical data on 829 physical systems and 28,800 plant systems and 28,800 plant and animal systems from and animal systems from 1970. 1970.

Analysis revealed a picture Analysis revealed a picture of changes on continental of changes on continental scales:scales:

In physical systems 95% In physical systems 95% of observed changes are of observed changes are consistent with warming consistent with warming trends.trends.

In living systems 90% of In living systems 90% of changes are most likely changes are most likely due to warming trends.due to warming trends.


3) Satellites can avoid cities3) Satellites can avoid cities


3) NASA-GISS data more widely spread3) NASA-GISS data more widely spread



4) The fastest warming has been in the Arctic – 4) The fastest warming has been in the Arctic – hardly a place of many ‘heat islands’!hardly a place of many ‘heat islands’!

2000’s compared to 1951-1980



NOAA go to great lengths to ensure their data is NOAA go to great lengths to ensure their data is reliable. Their website explains:reliable. Their website explains:

www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.htmlwww.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html Stations in isolated areas are more reliable than those in cities.Stations in isolated areas are more reliable than those in cities.

1-8 “Sea Levels have stopped rising1-8 “Sea Levels have stopped rising””

There is no basis for the idea that sea levels have There is no basis for the idea that sea levels have not risen. not risen.


But some claim they have stopped. But some claim they have stopped. (Ashby 2010)

This is a very dubious conclusion from this graph!

Again – a very short term trend (only 3 years here) is used to suggest a long term slow down.

The same data to Dec 2009 ...



SomeSome ThisThis


2-1 “The extra CO2-1 “The extra CO22 is not from fossil fuels” is not from fossil fuels”

Yes, it is.Yes, it is. Carbon has two isotopes: Carbon 12 and Carbon Carbon has two isotopes: Carbon 12 and Carbon

13 (one extra neutron in the nucleus).13 (one extra neutron in the nucleus). Fossil fuels have less of the Carbon 13 isotope.Fossil fuels have less of the Carbon 13 isotope. The proportion of Carbon 13 in the atmosphere is The proportion of Carbon 13 in the atmosphere is

decreasing as COdecreasing as CO22 from fossil fuels builds up. from fossil fuels builds up.


2-2 “The proportion of CO2-2 “The proportion of CO22 in the atmosphere in the atmosphere

is too small to matter.”is too small to matter.”

The amount of COThe amount of CO22 is small but crucial! is small but crucial!

The 99.9% (OThe 99.9% (O22 N N22 & A) & A) have no greenhouse effect and so have no greenhouse effect and so

are irrelevant.are irrelevant. A simple analogy...A simple analogy...

Composition of Air (by volume)

Oxygen 20.95%

Nitrogen 78.09%

Argon 0.933%

Carbon Dioxide 0.04% (used to be 0.03%)

Water vapour 0 ~ 3%


2-2 “...and the proportion of human produced 2-2 “...and the proportion of human produced COCO22 is even less.” is even less.”

Some have said that the amount of human produced Some have said that the amount of human produced COCO22 is only a very small portion of the increase. (Bob is only a very small portion of the increase. (Bob

Carter claims only 3%)Carter claims only 3%) That is total rubbish!That is total rubbish! That figure is obtained from the portion of human That figure is obtained from the portion of human

generated COgenerated CO22 staying in the atmosphere (~4 gtn) staying in the atmosphere (~4 gtn)

compared to all that going in and out (~108 gtn)compared to all that going in and out (~108 gtn) The ‘natural’ cycle is balanced! We are upsetting the The ‘natural’ cycle is balanced! We are upsetting the

balance by ~4gtn/yr now to the extent of a 38% balance by ~4gtn/yr now to the extent of a 38% increase!increase!


2-2 “...and the proportion of human produced 2-2 “...and the proportion of human produced COCO22 is even less.” is even less.”

Fossil fuel carbon has no CFossil fuel carbon has no C1414 because it has all because it has all decayed. (It is created in the atmosphere.)decayed. (It is created in the atmosphere.)

The concentration of CThe concentration of C1414 in atmospheric CO in atmospheric CO22 has has

decreased exactly in line with the burning of decreased exactly in line with the burning of fossil fuels.fossil fuels.

To claim that somehow the increase of COTo claim that somehow the increase of CO22 is is

not due to burning fossil fuels is an not due to burning fossil fuels is an extraordinary claim – with no evidence as to extraordinary claim – with no evidence as to where it is coming from!where it is coming from!


2-3 “Water vapour is a more important 2-3 “Water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.”greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.”

True!True! The total natural greenhouse effect warms the The total natural greenhouse effect warms the

Earth by about 33Earth by about 33ooC. It’s just as well we haven’t C. It’s just as well we haven’t increased that by 35%!increased that by 35%!

The interaction between HThe interaction between H22O and COO and CO22 is is

complex – they act in different wayscomplex – they act in different ways



Greenhouse Warming

+33 °C

H20

CO2

–18oC

+15oCCan’t allot definite proportions to H2O and CO2 because they act differently in different circumstances



HH22O goes in O goes in and out of the and out of the atmosphere atmosphere very rapidlyvery rapidly

Once COOnce CO22 is in is in the atmosphere the atmosphere it stays there for it stays there for a century or soa century or so

Which is why some people want to see coal power closedWhich is why some people want to see coal power closed


Because water vapour goes in and out of the Because water vapour goes in and out of the atmosphere readily it is referred to as a atmosphere readily it is referred to as a ‘feedback GHG’ ‘feedback GHG’ – more warmth, more H– more warmth, more H22O into the air, cooler O into the air, cooler

conditions and it rains out.conditions and it rains out. Carbon dioxide is a Carbon dioxide is a ‘forcing GHG’ ‘forcing GHG’ as it stays in the air as it stays in the air

continually forcing IR radiation back to Earth.continually forcing IR radiation back to Earth.

As well, H2O and CO2 absorb different parts of the IR radiation spectrum.



Absorption spectrum of HAbsorption spectrum of H22O, COO, CO22 and CH and CH44


H2O CO2

CH4


So it doesn’t matter how much water vapour is in the atmosphere, adding CO2 and CH4 will absorb more IR because they absorb different parts of the IR radiation spectrum.

2-3 “Water vapour is a more important greenhouse 2-3 “Water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.”gas than carbon dioxide.”


True... provided all other conditions are

appropriate

2-4 “2-4 “More COMore CO22 will help plants grow better will help plants grow better””


According to Peter Curtis, a professor of evolution, According to Peter Curtis, a professor of evolution, ecology and organismal biology at Ohio State ecology and organismal biology at Ohio State University:University:

While crops may be more productive, the seeds contain While crops may be more productive, the seeds contain less nitrogen. Nitrogen is critical for building protein less nitrogen. Nitrogen is critical for building protein

““The quality of the food produced by the plant The quality of the food produced by the plant decreases, so you've got to eat more of it to get the same decreases, so you've got to eat more of it to get the same benefits,”benefits,”

““For example, the total number of seeds in wheat and For example, the total number of seeds in wheat and barley plants increased by 15 percent, but the amount of barley plants increased by 15 percent, but the amount of nitrogen in the seeds declined by 20 percent.”nitrogen in the seeds declined by 20 percent.”



And that assumes the supply of water and other And that assumes the supply of water and other nutrients is not affected by warming…nutrients is not affected by warming…

and that ecosystems are not disrupted…and that ecosystems are not disrupted… and that plants won’t adapt to the new conditions and and that plants won’t adapt to the new conditions and

reduce their COreduce their CO22 uptake… uptake…

and that the extra COand that the extra CO22 doesn’t melt polar ice and flood doesn’t melt polar ice and flood

fertile areas…fertile areas… and…and…



2-7“The CO2-7“The CO22 in the atmosphere is already saturated” in the atmosphere is already saturated”


3-1 The warming is caused by natural cycles - Earth orbit, the Sun…

Of course there are many factors which affect the Of course there are many factors which affect the climate!climate!

That is not to say that greenhouse gases aren’t one of That is not to say that greenhouse gases aren’t one of them – indeed we know they are very important!them – indeed we know they are very important!


Plimer says “the climate Plimer says “the climate has always changed” – we has always changed” – we just have to get used to it.just have to get used to it.

““If we humans, in a fit of If we humans, in a fit of ego, think we can change ego, think we can change these normal planetary these normal planetary processes, then we need processes, then we need stronger medication.”stronger medication.”

3-1 The warming is caused by natural cycles - Earth orbit, the Sun…


A 35% increase in greenhouse gas A 35% increase in greenhouse gas just might effect the ‘natural cycles’!just might effect the ‘natural cycles’!


3-23-2 “ “Climate models are just computer models which are not reliable.Climate models are just computer models which are not reliable.””

Climate models are just the way scientists cope Climate models are just the way scientists cope with all the factors and calculations which must with all the factors and calculations which must be done to predict future climates.be done to predict future climates.

The basic input is data and the very well The basic input is data and the very well established laws of physics and chemistry.established laws of physics and chemistry.

Models are tested and modified by running them Models are tested and modified by running them over past climates.over past climates.

They are very successful at predicting past They are very successful at predicting past climatesclimates

The basic data needed is measured in various ways and is well known. Notice that overall, incoming equals outgoing (342 = 107 + 235). Also, that large amounts of energy are absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases.

(IPCC graph)

Scientists put all the laws of physics and Scientists put all the laws of physics and chemistry into computer models which can do chemistry into computer models which can do the vast numbers of calculations needed.the vast numbers of calculations needed.

Some of the basic equations:Some of the basic equations:



The models divide the atmosphere and ocean into The models divide the atmosphere and ocean into cells about 1 km deepcells about 1 km deep



Remember this:Remember this: Economic computer models take human guesses Economic computer models take human guesses

about other human’s behaviour.about other human’s behaviour. Scientific models take the very well known laws Scientific models take the very well known laws

of physics and chemistry and apply rigorous of physics and chemistry and apply rigorous maths.maths.

There is a VERY BIG difference between There is a VERY BIG difference between economic and scientific computer models!economic and scientific computer models!

And climate models can be tested...And climate models can be tested...



Results of models:Results of models:



Ignoring our emissions:Ignoring our emissions:

CoolingWrong!Wrong!



IncludingIncluding our emissions: our emissions: Warming

Correct!Correct!



This is one reason climate scientists This is one reason climate scientists are confident that they have the basic are confident that they have the basic science correct.science correct.

And those models predict more And those models predict more warming: 3°warming: 3°→→ 5°C this century... 5°C this century...

unless we cut emissions!unless we cut emissions!




Missing ‘hot spot’??? FIX THIS!!!Missing ‘hot spot’??? FIX THIS!!! The (US) CCSP SAP 1.1 Executive Summary states: "Previously The (US) CCSP SAP 1.1 Executive Summary states: "Previously

reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.” (From Wikipedia)discrepancies.” (From Wikipedia)


3-3 “3-3 “Correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.Correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.””

Typical ‘denier’ graph:Typical ‘denier’ graph:

• Short term 1998-2008Short term 1998-2008

• Starts on high ends on Starts on high ends on lowlow

• Deceptive scale (looks Deceptive scale (looks like more than 10 years)like more than 10 years)

• Looks ‘official’Looks ‘official’

3-3 “3-3 “Correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.Correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.””


3-4 “Climate science isn’t settled”3-4 “Climate science isn’t settled”

True! True! Science is never ‘settled’ and climate activists Science is never ‘settled’ and climate activists should stop saying it is.should stop saying it is.

The point is that there is a The point is that there is a largelarge amount of evidence to amount of evidence to suggest that we are dangerously interfering with the suggest that we are dangerously interfering with the climate.climate.

Science always works by different groups advocating Science always works by different groups advocating different approaches and often getting different results.different approaches and often getting different results.

By continually checking and re-checking, eventually By continually checking and re-checking, eventually results begin to agree and consensus emerges.results begin to agree and consensus emerges.

There is There is not yetnot yet a complete consensus, but there a complete consensus, but there ISIS strong strong opinion that we are changing the climate dangerously.opinion that we are changing the climate dangerously.



Some of the many science journals reporting on climate Some of the many science journals reporting on climate change:change:



There are hundreds of papers published each year on the subject and many are There are hundreds of papers published each year on the subject and many are conflicting.conflicting.

The point.The point. ““A failure by some scientists to be candid on the uncertainty of predicting the A failure by some scientists to be candid on the uncertainty of predicting the

rate of climate change is to blame for fuelling scepticism about such rate of climate change is to blame for fuelling scepticism about such predictions, according the UK government's chief scientific adviser.”predictions, according the UK government's chief scientific adviser.”

Beddington said scientists should give a caveat to their predictions where there Beddington said scientists should give a caveat to their predictions where there was uncertainty, and release source data "wherever possible" – but added that was uncertainty, and release source data "wherever possible" – but added that uncertainty was no excuse for inaction. "I don't think it's healthy to dismiss uncertainty was no excuse for inaction. "I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper scepticism," he tells the Times newspaper today. "Science grows and proper scepticism," he tells the Times newspaper today. "Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.“ climate change prediction that can't be changed.“



““Performing cutting-edge climate science in public could easily lead to Performing cutting-edge climate science in public could easily lead to misinterpretation, and it will take a great deal of work communicating misinterpretation, and it will take a great deal of work communicating carefully with the public and policymakers to ensure that the results are used carefully with the public and policymakers to ensure that the results are used appropriately.”appropriately.” More knowledge, less certainty Commentary Nature Reports More knowledge, less certainty Commentary Nature Reports Climate Change 21 January 2010 Kevin TrenberthClimate Change 21 January 2010 Kevin Trenberth



From RealClimate see From RealClimate see Unsettled Science Unsettled Science TAKE MAIN TAKE MAIN POINTSPOINTS RealClimate.org * Climate Science — gavin @ 3 RealClimate.org * Climate Science — gavin @ 3 December 2009 in Politics wpd. December 2009 in Politics wpd. The reason why no scientist The reason why no scientist has said this is because they know full well that knowledge about has said this is because they know full well that knowledge about science is not binary – science isn’t either settled or not settled. science is not binary – science isn’t either settled or not settled. This is a false and misleading dichotomy. Instead, we know This is a false and misleading dichotomy. Instead, we know things with varying degrees of confidence – for instance, things with varying degrees of confidence – for instance, conservation of energy is pretty well accepted, as is the theory of conservation of energy is pretty well accepted, as is the theory of gravity (despite continuing interest in what happens at very small gravity (despite continuing interest in what happens at very small scales or very high energies) , while the exact nature of dark scales or very high energies) , while the exact nature of dark matter is still unclear. The forced binary distinction implicit in the matter is still unclear. The forced binary distinction implicit in the phrase is designed to misleadingly relegate anything about which phrase is designed to misleadingly relegate anything about which there is still uncertainty to the category of completely unknown. there is still uncertainty to the category of completely unknown. i.e. that since we don’t know everything, we know nothing.i.e. that since we don’t know everything, we know nothing.



The point is that we can not wait for certainty!The point is that we can not wait for certainty! That will only come when it is far too late to do That will only come when it is far too late to do

anything.anything.


3-5 “Many scientists disagree with the IPCC conclusions”3-5 “Many scientists disagree with the IPCC conclusions”

Science is about testing hypotheses. Scepticism is Science is about testing hypotheses. Scepticism is central to science.central to science.

…….easy to find disagreements – consensus not so .easy to find disagreements – consensus not so obviousobvious

But the disagreements are about the details, not the But the disagreements are about the details, not the general conclusion that AGW is dangerous.general conclusion that AGW is dangerous.

Surveys are very misleading – a butterfly collector Surveys are very misleading – a butterfly collector counts the same as a climate scientist.counts the same as a climate scientist.



After assessing 687 individuals named as “dissenting scientists” After assessing 687 individuals named as “dissenting scientists” in the January 2009 version of the United States Senate Minority in the January 2009 version of the United States Senate Minority Report (James Inhofe) the Center for Inquiry’s Credibility Project Report (James Inhofe) the Center for Inquiry’s Credibility Project found that: found that:

• • Slightly fewer than 10% could be identified as climate Slightly fewer than 10% could be identified as climate scientists. scientists.

• • Approximately 15% published in the recognizable refereed Approximately 15% published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science. literature on subjects related to climate science.

• • Approximately 80% clearly had no refereed publication record Approximately 80% clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all. on climate science at all.

• • Approximately 4% appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 Approximately 4% appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list. consensus and should not have been on the list.



Some of the Australian “scientists” included in Some of the Australian “scientists” included in that report:that report:

Ian PlimerIan Plimer geologistgeologist David EvansDavid Evans mathematicianmathematician Bill KininmonthBill Kininmonth Lavoisier Group, retired meteorologistLavoisier Group, retired meteorologist Bob CarterBob Carter marine scientist “marine scientist “carbon dioxide is beneficial” carbon dioxide is beneficial” Lance EndersbeeLance Endersbee engineerengineer David ArchibaldDavid Archibald oil explorer “need COoil explorer “need CO22 to counter global cooling” to counter global cooling”

Des Moore (IPE)Des Moore (IPE) economisteconomist Bob FosterBob Foster Lavoisier Group, Mining executiveLavoisier Group, Mining executive Ray EvansRay Evans Lavoisier Group, Mining executiveLavoisier Group, Mining executive Don AitkinDon Aitkin social commentatorsocial commentator Robert Foster Robert Foster Lavoisier GroupLavoisier Group Garth PaltridgeGarth Paltridge retired physicist “AGW real but too small to matter” retired physicist “AGW real but too small to matter”



Many of these are:Many of these are: Not climate scientistsNot climate scientists GeologistsGeologists RetiredRetired EconomistsEconomists Social scientistsSocial scientists Have interests in mining companiesHave interests in mining companies Associated or members of the IPAAssociated or members of the IPA



This year a well publicised petition was sent to This year a well publicised petition was sent to the American Physical Society to discard their the American Physical Society to discard their position on anthropogenic climate change.position on anthropogenic climate change.

About 200 APS members signed it (< 0.5%)About 200 APS members signed it (< 0.5%) BUT: It was organised by people from the BUT: It was organised by people from the

Heartland, Marshall & CATO Institutes and Heartland, Marshall & CATO Institutes and other well known ultra right organisations.other well known ultra right organisations.

It was ‘overwhelmingly rejected’ by the APS but It was ‘overwhelmingly rejected’ by the APS but still has a high profile on denier blogs.still has a high profile on denier blogs.



Of those who signed the APS petion Of those who signed the APS petion only oneonly one had published a paper in related fields.had published a paper in related fields.

The vast majority were retired and over 60.The vast majority were retired and over 60.

(Hey, what’s wrong with (Hey, what’s wrong with that?!)that?!)

Only a handful were under 50.Only a handful were under 50. A large number had been involved in other A large number had been involved in other

denier movements.denier movements.



In another proper academic survey of scientists In another proper academic survey of scientists 3146 Earth Scientists were asked “Do you think 3146 Earth Scientists were asked “Do you think

human activity is a significant contributing human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing global temperatures?”factor in changing global temperatures?”

97% of the active climate scientists said ‘yes’ 97% of the active climate scientists said ‘yes’ (see next slide)(see next slide)

Public Public 57%57%

Active climate Active climate scientists 97%scientists 97%


Some scientific bodies who have issued statements stressing the Some scientific bodies who have issued statements stressing the need for action on climate change – need for action on climate change – USA onlyUSA only

National Academies of ScienceNational Academies of Science National Research CouncilNational Research Council American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) American Institute of PhysicsAmerican Institute of Physics Woods Hole Research CenterWoods Hole Research Center Union of Concerned ScientistsUnion of Concerned Scientists Federal Climate Change Science ProgramFederal Climate Change Science Program American Geophysical UnionAmerican Geophysical Union Geological Society of AmericaGeological Society of America American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization) American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization) Federal Climate Change Science Program - commissioned by Bush! Federal Climate Change Science Program - commissioned by Bush! American Association of State ClimatologistsAmerican Association of State Climatologists US Geological SurveyUS Geological Survey Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Pew Center on Climate ChangePew Center on Climate Change


• UN Project on Climate Variability and PredictabilityUN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• United Nations Environment ProgramUnited Nations Environment Program

• World Meteorological OrganizationWorld Meteorological Organization

• International Council on Science International Council on Science

• The Royal Society (UK)The Royal Society (UK)

• The Institute of Physics (UK)The Institute of Physics (UK)

• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

• Geological Society of LondonGeological Society of London

• The Australian Academy of SciencesThe Australian Academy of Sciences

• The Australian CSIROThe Australian CSIRO

• The Australian Bureau of Meterology The Australian Bureau of Meterology

• The Australian Institute of PhysicsThe Australian Institute of Physics

• The Institution of Engineers AustraliaThe Institution of Engineers Australia

• The Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic SocietyThe Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society

• … … and many more!and many more!

Some scientific bodies who have issued statements stressing the Some scientific bodies who have issued statements stressing the need for action on climate change – need for action on climate change – Rest of WorldRest of World



Better still, look at the published science!Better still, look at the published science! The vast bulk of published science is saying the The vast bulk of published science is saying the

same thing: same thing:


Where is the consensus?Where is the consensus? Let’s look at the key science journals!Let’s look at the key science journals!


Let’s look at the key science journals!Let’s look at the key science journals!



There are a small number of published articles There are a small number of published articles claiming alternative explanations for warming.claiming alternative explanations for warming.

This is a natural part of science – always testing This is a natural part of science – always testing ideas by trying to disprove them.ideas by trying to disprove them.

None of these papers ‘disproves’ AGW, they None of these papers ‘disproves’ AGW, they only cast some doubt on some aspects.only cast some doubt on some aspects.

Most of these are usually cleared up within a Most of these are usually cleared up within a year or so and yet are still quoted by deniers.year or so and yet are still quoted by deniers.


From a ‘denier’ presentation by Leon Ashby



This paper This paper has been has been very thoroughly refuted as very thoroughly refuted as total rubbish!total rubbish!

It was published in an obscure Hungarian It was published in an obscure Hungarian journal and is full of fundamental errors.journal and is full of fundamental errors.

Why would we risk the future of the planet on Why would we risk the future of the planet on one obscure publication????one obscure publication????



The nature of science is to be sceptical – that is The nature of science is to be sceptical – that is how it has progressed.how it has progressed.

One article going against the general opinion One article going against the general opinion does not negate all the others.does not negate all the others.

Articles questioning the general opinion are Articles questioning the general opinion are valuable to scientists...valuable to scientists...

but can be, and are, misused by deniers.but can be, and are, misused by deniers.



The “Oregon Petition” which was signed by about 31,000 The “Oregon Petition” which was signed by about 31,000 ‘scientists’ is often quoted as showing that “there is no consensus ‘scientists’ is often quoted as showing that “there is no consensus on AGW”.on AGW”.

It is important to realise that it was a PETITION not a survey: It is important to realise that it was a PETITION not a survey: It could be signed by anyone who could claim they were any sort It could be signed by anyone who could claim they were any sort

of “scientist”. (No need for any climate connection!)of “scientist”. (No need for any climate connection!) Signers were encouraged to send it on to anyone else who would Signers were encouraged to send it on to anyone else who would

sign.sign. Anyone could request a form from the website.Anyone could request a form from the website. There were many fraudulent signersThere were many fraudulent signers The actual number of signers was a very small portion of people The actual number of signers was a very small portion of people

in the US who could claim to be a ‘scientist’.in the US who could claim to be a ‘scientist’.


3-53-5

The “Oregon Petition” was discussed in eSkeptic, the newsletter The “Oregon Petition” was discussed in eSkeptic, the newsletter of the Skeptic Society. The conclusion:of the Skeptic Society. The conclusion:

““In conclusion, through his Global Warming Petition Project, In conclusion, through his Global Warming Petition Project, Arthur Robinson has solicited the opinions of the wrong group of Arthur Robinson has solicited the opinions of the wrong group of people in the wrong way and drawn the wrong conclusions about people in the wrong way and drawn the wrong conclusions about any possible consensus among relevant and qualified scientists any possible consensus among relevant and qualified scientists regarding the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. His regarding the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. His petition is unqualified to deliver answers about a consensus in petition is unqualified to deliver answers about a consensus in which the public is interested. He has a right to conduct any kind which the public is interested. He has a right to conduct any kind of petition drive he wishes, but he is not ethically entitled to of petition drive he wishes, but he is not ethically entitled to misrepresent his petition as a fair reflection of relevant scientific misrepresent his petition as a fair reflection of relevant scientific opinion. He has confused his political with his scientific aims opinion. He has confused his political with his scientific aims and misled the public in the process.”and misled the public in the process.”

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/


3-6 “Ice core data shows CO3-6 “Ice core data shows CO22 rises before temperature” rises before temperature”

There are many factors that can either trigger There are many factors that can either trigger an ice age or bring the Earth out of an ice age.an ice age or bring the Earth out of an ice age.

A rise in the temperature will release COA rise in the temperature will release CO22 from from

the oceans, COthe oceans, CO22 has a positive feedback effect, has a positive feedback effect,

i.e. it increases the temperature further, and so i.e. it increases the temperature further, and so on ….on ….


3-7 “CO3-7 “CO22 absorption is saturated” absorption is saturated”

Or “The greenhouse effect is already at a Or “The greenhouse effect is already at a maximum”maximum”

““Adding more COAdding more CO22 won’t produce more won’t produce more

greenhouse effect”greenhouse effect” etc.etc.


1900 paper by 1900 paper by AngstromAngstrom


1900 paper by 1900 paper by AngstromAngstrom

30 cm



ThisThis


4-1 “Past warming has been good for life.”4-1 “Past warming has been good for life.”

True – Once conditions became established!True – Once conditions became established! ...TBC...TBC


4-2 “Technology will solve the problem”4-2 “Technology will solve the problem”

through geoengineering or COthrough geoengineering or CO22 pull down. pull down.


4-3 “Tackling CC is economically dangerous”4-3 “Tackling CC is economically dangerous”

Tackling climate change is economically dangerous.Tackling climate change is economically dangerous.


4-4 “CO4-4 “CO22 from the developing world” from the developing world”

The increased COThe increased CO22 from the developing world will exceed any from the developing world will exceed any

reduction the developed world can do.reduction the developed world can do.


4-5 “Australia’s emissions are relatively low”4-5 “Australia’s emissions are relatively low”

China’s emissions are many times ours China’s emissions are many times ours True – But what about emissions per person?True – But what about emissions per person?

Get graph of total emissions showing Aust as Get graph of total emissions showing Aust as well as total populationwell as total population


25.6 ÷ 3.9 = 6.6

4-5 “Australia’s emissions are relatively low”


It is astounding that supposedly rational, much It is astounding that supposedly rational, much less moral, people will use this sort of argument!less moral, people will use this sort of argument!

As a heavy coal/oil user nation we have a As a heavy coal/oil user nation we have a responsibility to find ways to overcome the responsibility to find ways to overcome the problem WE have created – the Chinese didn’t problem WE have created – the Chinese didn’t create it!create it!

4-5 “Australia’s emissions are relatively low”


4-6 “Catastrophic predictions don’t come true”4-6 “Catastrophic predictions don’t come true”

People have been predicting global catastrophes forever and People have been predicting global catastrophes forever and none ever come true.none ever come true.

The Y2K bug was supposed to bring the electronic world to a The Y2K bug was supposed to bring the electronic world to a halt in 2000!halt in 2000!

People realised that it could be a problem People realised that it could be a problem AND TOOK AND TOOK APPROPRIATE ACTION!APPROPRIATE ACTION!

Same with Ozone hole.Same with Ozone hole. Most other dire predictions were not from scientists. Most other dire predictions were not from scientists.


4-7 “They said we were heading for an ice age!”4-7 “They said we were heading for an ice age!”

In the 1970's they said we were approaching an ice age.In the 1970's they said we were approaching an ice age. We are – or we were until our CO2 emissions outweighed the We are – or we were until our CO2 emissions outweighed the

very slow return toward another ice age in a few thousand very slow return toward another ice age in a few thousand years.years.

That was a hypothesis being discussed in the 70’s, but there That was a hypothesis being discussed in the 70’s, but there were no firm conclusions about it – despite what some media were no firm conclusions about it – despite what some media reports said.reports said.


4-8 “It’s a left wing political ploy”4-8 “It’s a left wing political ploy”

““Climate change has been taken up by left wing groups to Climate change has been taken up by left wing groups to attack capitalism.”attack capitalism.”

So somehow left wing groups have hoodwinked the huge So somehow left wing groups have hoodwinked the huge numbers of scientists (right back to Fourier and Arrhenius) into numbers of scientists (right back to Fourier and Arrhenius) into becoming political radicals prepared to give up their becoming political radicals prepared to give up their commitment to truth seeking!commitment to truth seeking!

This is just evidence of the extraordinary nonsense the deniers This is just evidence of the extraordinary nonsense the deniers will sink to.will sink to.

4-9 “‘Climategate’ showed scientists cooked the data.”4-9 “‘Climategate’ showed scientists cooked the data.”


Bolt: Bolt: Cried one, IPCC co-author Kevin Trenberth, in an Cried one, IPCC co-author Kevin Trenberth, in an email to other members of this conspiracy: "The fact email to other members of this conspiracy: "The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can'the moment and it's a travesty that we can' tt."."

Trenberth is actually concerned about our inability to track Trenberth is actually concerned about our inability to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes – which small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes – which would help quantify the current changes in the Earth’s energy would help quantify the current changes in the Earth’s energy budget. budget. The email comment has absolutely nothing to do The email comment has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of warming!with a lack of warming!

In his recent paper:In his recent paper:An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energyenergy… … he discusses the need for better measurements of radiative fluxeshe discusses the need for better measurements of radiative fluxes


New Scientist New Scientist (web) 25 Nov:(web) 25 Nov:

““An analysis by An analysis by New ScientistNew Scientist finds scant evidence of data finds scant evidence of data abuse, but does show persistent efforts to suppress work by abuse, but does show persistent efforts to suppress work by climate sceptics.climate sceptics.

““Mostly the researchers are exposed as doing what they are Mostly the researchers are exposed as doing what they are supposed to do: engaging in an often adversarial process to supposed to do: engaging in an often adversarial process to arrive at the truth. One long exchange ends: "This is arrive at the truth. One long exchange ends: "This is ultimately about science, it's not personal."ultimately about science, it's not personal."

4-9

4-9 “Hacked emails show scientists cooked the data.”4-9 “Hacked emails show scientists cooked the data.”

““The e-mails show researchers speaking privately The e-mails show researchers speaking privately to one another, and it’s not always pretty. They to one another, and it’s not always pretty. They bad-mouth colleagues and critics (“The kindest bad-mouth colleagues and critics (“The kindest interpretation is that he is a complete idiot ...,” interpretation is that he is a complete idiot ...,” says one about another climate scientist). They says one about another climate scientist). They discuss how to avoid releasing raw data to critics. discuss how to avoid releasing raw data to critics. They worry that certain journals are becoming too They worry that certain journals are becoming too sympathetic to the other side.”sympathetic to the other side.”

4-9 “Hacked emails show scientists cooked the data.”4-9 “Hacked emails show scientists cooked the data.”

““What the e-mails do not show, however, is a What the e-mails do not show, however, is a grand conspiracy to concoct global warming. grand conspiracy to concoct global warming. Instead, they show sincere researchers struggling Instead, they show sincere researchers struggling to do good work in a highly politicized to do good work in a highly politicized environment — and sometimes losing their environment — and sometimes losing their tempers.”tempers.”

The Psychology of climate denialThe Psychology of climate denial

Psychological Adaptation to the Threats and Psychological Adaptation to the Threats and Stresses of a Four Degree WorldStresses of a Four Degree World

A paper for “Four Degrees and Beyond” conference, A paper for “Four Degrees and Beyond” conference, Oxford University 28-30 September 2009Oxford University 28-30 September 2009

Clive HamiltonClive Hamilton, Charles Sturt Professor of Public , Charles Sturt Professor of Public Ethics, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the Australian National UniversityEthics at the Australian National University

Tim KasserTim Kasser, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, , Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Knox Department of Psychology, Knox College, Illinois, College, Illinois, USAUSA

Web link??Web link??

We group the coping strategies that people are likely to use in the face of globalWe group the coping strategies that people are likely to use in the face of global

warming into three types.warming into three types.

1. 1. Denial strategies. These strategies aim primarily at suppressing anxietyDenial strategies. These strategies aim primarily at suppressing anxiety

associated with predictions of climate disruption by not allowing the facts toassociated with predictions of climate disruption by not allowing the facts to

be accepted in the conscious mind. By denying the reality of the facts, nobe accepted in the conscious mind. By denying the reality of the facts, no

emotions need be felt.emotions need be felt.

2. 2. Maladaptive coping strategies. Maladaptive coping strategies. Those using these methods acknowledge andThose using these methods acknowledge and

accept the facts about global warming up to a point, but the emotional impactaccept the facts about global warming up to a point, but the emotional impact

is such that they need somehow to blunt some aspects of the facts or theis such that they need somehow to blunt some aspects of the facts or the

associated emotions. As such, these methods of coping can be maladaptive orassociated emotions. As such, these methods of coping can be maladaptive or

unhelpful both to the individual and to the situation because they impedeunhelpful both to the individual and to the situation because they impede

appropriate action.appropriate action.

3. 3. Adaptive coping strategies. Adaptive coping strategies. These strategies are deployed when the personThese strategies are deployed when the person

accepts both the facts and the accompanying emotions, and then tries to act onaccepts both the facts and the accompanying emotions, and then tries to act on

the basis of both. They are adaptive in the sense of promoting psychologicalthe basis of both. They are adaptive in the sense of promoting psychological

adjustment to new circumstances and stimulating actions appropriate to theadjustment to new circumstances and stimulating actions appropriate to the

new reality.new reality.

This APA Climate Change Task Force Report considers This APA Climate Change Task Force Report considers psychology’s contribution to psychology’s contribution to climate change by addressing the climate change by addressing the following six questions:following six questions:

Section 1: How do people understand the risks imposed by Section 1: How do people understand the risks imposed by climate change?climate change?

Section 2: What are the human behavioral contributions to Section 2: What are the human behavioral contributions to climate change and the psychological and contextual drivers of climate change and the psychological and contextual drivers of these contributions?these contributions?

Section 3: What are the psychosocial impacts of climate change?Section 3: What are the psychosocial impacts of climate change? Section 4: How do people adapt to and cope with the perceived Section 4: How do people adapt to and cope with the perceived

threat and unfolding impacts of threat and unfolding impacts of climate change?climate change? Section 5: Which psychological barriers limit climate change Section 5: Which psychological barriers limit climate change

action?action? Section 6: How can psychologists assist in limiting climate Section 6: How can psychologists assist in limiting climate

change?change?

To be continued!To be continued!

australian institute of physics (vic branch) education committee could the ‘climate sceptics’ be...

Documents