350 day fails to impress

Or as my friend down under, Andrew Bolt, calls it: “Day of apathy”

image

Sydney yesterday demonstrated the depth of international passion about global warming through several highly pictorial stunts:

It was part of a series of events across Sydney yesterday by the environment movement 350.org. Australia was the first of 179 countries to take part in 4500 events worldwide as part of the International Day of Climate Action.

Counting the people in the picture, though, I’d say that this is not a global day of action, but global day of apathy. Or, let’s hope, a global day of mounting scepticism.

Left:  People   outside the Opera House  take a stand on climate change yesterday. Top: . Protesters  at Manly and bottom, Marton  Hidas at the Opera House.

Left: People outside the Opera House take a stand on climate change yesterday. Top: Protesters at Manly and bottom, Marton Hidas at the Opera House. Photo: Adam Hollingworth, Janie Barrett

And that’s even without discounting for the tourists and the unfortunate children who were simply dragged there by parents warning them they may not have a future:

Among those on the Opera House steps showing their support was Rae Lawrence from Croydon, who brought her sons, Cameron, 6, and Nicholas, 8. ‘’We care about the future and I want them to have one to live in,’’ she said.

UPDATE

Apologies. From Greenpeace, this proof that the crowds in Sydney may have been even bigger than I sneeringly suggest:

image

UPDATE 2

The global day of apathy rolls on in Rome:

image

And in Kiev:

image

And Dunedin, just the one:

image

In Copenhagen, where the world’s leaders will meet in December to discuss slashing emissions – or not:

image

And Shanghai, city of 17 million, in a country that is now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases:

image


But you know it’s a snoozer, media-wise, when “balloon boy”, his mom, and the death of Soupy Sales gets above the fold on Google News and “350” doesn’t:

click for larger image

click for larger image

UPDATE: Maybe I jinxed it, maybe it just took awhile for enough “critical mass” of stories to accumulate. Google has now elevated 350 day to top story status, even though it has far less the number of linked stories as the other top entries. An editorial decision, most likely.

Google_350_topstory

click for larger image

Had I not seen Bolt’s column on it, I wouldn’t even have remembered to mention it myself. What did you do for “350 day”?

UPDATE 10/25: Bill McKIbben can’t do simple math.From 350.org website…seems to me the other two stories have a lot more new coverage. Lets see:

350 event: 322 news stories,

Church janitor: 854 news stories

Obama-Iran: 5255 news stories

So how does he get “for a little while, we’re the most talked about news story on the planet”?

350_McKibbenMath

As of this writing, they’ve only managed 661 news stories and have fallen off the Google above the fold section.

Advertisements

123 thoughts on “350 day fails to impress

  1. When we put our minds to something, we can achieve all kinds of absurdities. Imagine what would happen if we put our minds and money to something useful?
    Doesn’t it seem that the most inane, pretentious activities receive the most public support? Is it because you can more easily dupe a gullible public? Is it because you can’t profiteer from things of substance?
    I’m convinced that this is a form of self sabotage.
    I have to remind myself again and again that this is the 21st C.

  2. Well, the…errrmm..weather in Sydney is…errmmm…cold. It’s even colder today, over cast and wet. Sydney siders don’t do cold and wet.

  3. So far here in Colorado it is a non-event as far as the media is concerned. I can find only a single mention of it in a quick scan of the local media sites. Apparently 6 local churches rang their bells 350 times today.
    Larry

  4. What is that?. It seems something new to me…perhaps it is because I´ve been so apathetic (passion-less) about global warming. Lastly for me Goric message has been boresome, as boresome as the prophet himself.

  5. What is the magic behind 350 ppm? What “peer reviewed” study “proves” that it is the maximum (or optimum?) CO2 concentration? Real greenhouses regularly pump up the nasty stuff to 800 ppmv or more, and see considerable improvement in plant growth. Ice cores, if they have any credibility, show times in the past with much higher concentrations, and the earth didn’t melt.
    And how much CO2 did those six churches generate by ringing their bells?
    Pet rocks made more sense.

  6. The 350 demo in Andrew Bolt’s hometown of Melbourne Australia didn’t impress either. It was held in the city in an outdoor cafe at the side of a library building. There was a rock band – the size of the small crowd varied with the music.
    Must have been at least a hundred persons there – when the rock band was playing.
    Didn’t even see a police presence.

  7. I see that “350” means “the dangerous 350 ppm” of CO2 concentration. But it crossed the line long ago, in 1987 or 1988 IIRC. They don’t know this ringing fact?

  8. A bottle of wine has a volume of 750 ml. If one takes half of that you have 375 ml, a number closer to the alleged current CO2 concentration. This amounts to 2 nice sized glasses of wine (just over 6 oz. each). In an attempt to counter the activities of “350-day” I think I will open a bottle of wine and drink exactly half of it, 375 ml. Tomorrow I will drink the rest of it. Please join me in this protest. For everyone that does, thank you. I’m positive we will be most pleased with the result and our numbers will exceed those shown in the accompanying photos.
    Cheers, John

  9. I threw out a perfectly good 20 year old regfrig to make room for a same size one in stainless. Is that cool or what ?

  10. I had a day in the bars and drank 12 bottles of beer – 350cc in fact. Carbonated beer, of course.

  11. John F
    Why stop at 375ml. Find someone to share the other half with. Stale wine doesn’t taste half as good.
    Are we OT?????

  12. I like the human WAKE UP sign. Apparently, that’s a call to everyone too lazy to get out of bed for this laughable event.
    The people who showed up need to wake up and smell the deep solar minimum.

  13. Yesterday, I watched a very large pile of trees set on fire and burn – huge flames – warming the cockles of my heart. Mans triumph over Nature.

  14. What they were actually doing – though they weren’t aware of it – was they were visualising what 350 CO2 molecules look like in amongst the rest of the 999,650 molecules which constitute the atmosphere.
    1 poor mis-informed human per CO2 molecule.
    The other 999,650 molecules – or humans – just simply weren’t there, either because they know better, aren’t convinced of the big lie, or simply have more important business to attend to.
    😉

  15. OT (from SC24.com)
    Sunspot 1029 is now starting to become more magnetically organized and there is now a chance for B-Class solar flares or an isolated C-Class flare. The X-Ray flux is bubbling up with B-Class flares.
    The solar flux reached 76.9 today. This is the highest flux reading of Cycle 24 thus far. When will the solar flux crack 80? 100? Time will tell.
    Update: A C-Class flare has taken place at 02:25 UTC Sunday. More to follow.

  16. Frank (19:37:45) :
    >……..and smell the deep solar minimum.
    Are the 30 sunspots from yesterday due to Cycle 24 ?

  17. Thanks for the reminder…
    Be-e-e-elcchhhh!!!!
    (There’s my contribution to 350 Day. CO2 level was gettin’ a little low around my neck of the woods. Had to do something to help get it back up to 350.)
    Okay, okay, I confess. I forgot all about it and went fishing today. Was fishing on the list of the approved 350 Day activities?

  18. SBS Worldwide News (Australia) had a segment on “International Day of Climate Action” and had a segment on the island of Kiribati.
    http://player.sbs.com.au/naca/#/naca/wna/Latest/playlist/International-Day-of-Climate-Action/
    A group of people had formed the numerals “350”. The reporter claimed “hundreds gathered today to form a number of special significance”. I took a screen shot and counted them: 167 plus or minus a few. So even “hundreds” is incorrect.

  19. What did you do for “350 day”?
    Me and the little lady & the kids went out on this boat tonight, when all of a sudden this huge creature, this giant crustacean from the palaeolithic era, comes out of the water.
    We was so scared, Lord have mercy, I jumped up in the boat and I said “What on earth is that creature?!”
    It stood above us looking down with these big red eyes… Oh it was so scary!
    And I yelled, I said “What do you want from us monster?!” And the monster bent down and said:
    “It’s tree fiddy day. Didn’t you know?”

  20. Is it just me, or does the aerial shot of those buildings look like the Pope’s headpiece (Mitre)??
    They’re painted white too.

  21. OT: Does anyone know the acknowledged percent of AGW CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

  22. The science is in
    The crowds were strong
    From true pictures, much greater turnout than expected.
    What showed up? About 3% of their hopes?

  23. How about 1500 ppm? That’s what it was estimated to be during the Carbiniferous Period, when a lot of the coal was laid down. Somehow, the oceans managed to avoid becoming so acidic that life couldn’t live in the oceans, though that’s the impending catastrophe dogma du jour of the Global Warming religion.

  24. @Retire Engineer. The answer to your questions: 1. None, 2.None. 305 didn’t penetrate my milieu. I might be the only one aware of its existence and I ain’t telling.

  25. Norm/Calgary (20:46:48) :
    3% of atmospheric CO2 is attributed to man. That would be 3% of 0.038% (0.038%=338PPMV) of the atmosphere.

  26. I had no clue there was a 350 day and I pride myself on staying abreast of current events, particularly on AGW – I apparently missed the whole dang thing. Curious what the local green McCarthyites had for a turnout. Nothing on the radio today so will wait for Monday’s paper.

  27. Norm/Calgary (20:46:48) :
    3% of atmospheric CO2 is attributed to man. That would be 3% of 0.038% (0.038%=380PPMV) of the atmosphere.oops

  28. “Norm/Calgary (20:46:48) :
    OT: Does anyone know the acknowledged percent of AGW CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the total CO2 in the atmosphere?”
    I think the AGW CO2 bit is ~2% of the ~0.0385% of total CO2 in the atmosphere. So 2% of 0.0385% is, well, bugger all.

  29. “Don S. (21:29:44) :
    Possibly OT. Just observe the bricks falling from the edifice of AGW.”
    So Copenhagen shall be an assembly of clownery, including our prime minister who said we should aim to curb CO2 emission by 25% against 1990 level by 2020? Surely much fun indeed.

  30. “Norm/Calgary (20:46:48) :
    OT: Does anyone know the acknowledged percent of AGW CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the total CO2 in the atmosphere?”
    Norm, nothing is acknowledged. It is [b]believed[/b] that of annual CO2 input to the troposphere, 5% of that is anthropogenic, 95% from natural causes. Not enough research has been undertaken.
    As we commonly say here in Australia, “that’s three-quarters of five-eights of sweet f**k all!!”

  31. 3% of CO2 annually going into the atmosphere is anthropogenic.
    There is some accumulation apparently, so up to 4% in total according to this recent article:
    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
    So yes, are we all thinking the same thing ?? 388 ppm X 0.04 is about 16 ppm and 362 ppm is above 350 ppm. So these nincompoops want to take natural CO2 out of the atmosphere too ??
    I don’t actually care about that. It’s the fact that they want to force me to help pay for it that makes me beyond angry.

  32. With all due respect, it is not insignificant. (And I speak as a skeptic.)
    There’s a multifold CO2 exchange going on. In nature, the same amount is emitted as is reabsorbed (over the short geological run). When we we add 3% extra, some of it gets absorbed by the ocean, soil, and organism sinks, but some of it (a bit less than half) accumulates in the atmosphere. Maybe 3 Billion Metric Tons Carbon per year (the atmosphere has c. 760 BMTC).
    So there’s an accumulation of a little under a half a percent per year. That adds up over the years.
    Now, I do NOT believe this matters damnall because I think CO2 is a bit player, a mere fingerprint, not a primary driver. But that 3% does accumulate over time.

  33. The original organizers were considering a target of 450 as a realistic goal.However, in discussing this target, James Hansen suggested 350, a target lower than current levels. His reasoning was that this lower target would send a much stronger message, a message of increased urgency.
    Interesting how this scientist chooses his targets based on politics not science.

  34. “jamel (22:00:38) : ……….this scientist chooses his targets based on politics not science.”
    IIRC, in another thread yesterday someone described him as “mad”. Isn’t the “politics” a typo for “madness”? 😉

  35. I use a crude Bathtub analogy.
    There is a bathtub with some water in it. The tap is on but the drain is open. The same amount going in as is going out. If you turn up the tap even as little as 3% the water level will rise whereas it had not risen before.
    There are more complex persistence mechanisms not explained in this analogy that causes the rise to level off eventually. But until then, there will be a rise.
    I repeat, I do NOT think CO2 level matters much. But it does rise if we add 3% per year; some of it WILL accumulate until persistence is stabilized.

  36. Save your time and money, this thing is headed for the discount counter. “Was 350. Now marked down to 199.99.”

  37. There are 21 million people here in Australia and 20,998,750 failed to turn up for this event including me!

  38. Somewhere between 5000 and 10000 showed up in Vancouver BC but the rest of Canada considers it La La land and it is home to David Suzuki.

  39. Nobody thought about that all the fossil fuel that we are burning, was originally organic material, created by photosynthesis, which requires atmospheric CO2. When we are burning fossil fuel we are merely returning CO2 to the atmosphere where it originally resided. Of course, we cannot restore the original atmospheric CO2 concentration, because a lot of it is sequestrated in carbonate rocks and a lot of carbon containing deposits will never be burnt, either because it will not be discovered, or cannot be used economically.

  40. evanmjones (21:56:01) :
    With all due respect, it is not insignificant. (And I speak as a skeptic.)
    There’s a multifold CO2 exchange going on. In nature, the same amount is emitted as is reabsorbed (over the short geological run). When we we add 3% extra, some of it gets absorbed by the ocean, soil, and organism sinks, but some of it (a bit less than half) accumulates in the atmosphere. Maybe 3 Billion Metric Tons Carbon per year (the atmosphere has c. 760 BMTC).
    So there’s an accumulation of a little under a half a percent per year. That adds up over the years.

    Well, it would, if the biosphere, algae and all did not increase cumulatively correspondingly over the years. I am not aware of a study that says they respond worse to extra CO2 than the greenhouse plants.
    Now, I do NOT believe this matters damnall because I think CO2 is a bit player, a mere fingerprint, not a primary driver. But that 3% does accumulate over time.
    After all CO2 is the exhaling of all living things and the food/fertilizer for the flora. Humans happen to be a bit larger than a lion. Large dinossaurs with gas.
    It reminds me of a joke going around in my college years:
    Dinosaurs disappeared because their body became too large for their brain capacity, in contrast to man.
    Man +car gets in the range of dinosaur brain/body ratio, so will soon disappear.
    At least the car, if AGWers have their way.

  41. The way I explain the amount of CO2 (say 350ppm) in the atmosphere is as follows.
    Our local football (soccer) team gets a home crowd of 30000, CO2 is the away team of 11 people. It’s even better for my home town team whose home crowd, apart from visits by the “Auld Firm” (aka the forces of darkness), is 3000, in this case the referee is the CO2. Quite frequently this is regarded as being untrue until proof is sought on the web.

  42. Google expects to profit from this malarky. Hence a non-event is the number one story. More people watched Not Evil Just Wrong than all the 350 events put together but the media ignored it.

  43. Dear all, you can’t miss this, I’ve got the pic from the 350.org site, the girls celebrating the day (Valencia, Spain) got the wrong ppm number, maybe they’re far more radical than Hansen himself, maybe the girl in the middle should move to her left, who knows? 🙂 305 vs. 350
    http://creudelaconca.blogspot.com/
    best

  44. “rafa (02:38:32) :
    http://creudelaconca.blogspot.com/
    best”
    I had a good chuckle, given I’ve had a pretty tough best part of two weeks, this cheered me up. To me, what it represents IMO, is that most “supporters” (being the general public. Al Gore, Hansen and politicians etc excluded, they are fully aware of their drive to control energy) of this AGW hoax, simply, have no clue.

  45. As a member of the Scottish diaspora ( Melbourne, Australia,) I’m proud that the intellectual traditions of critical thinking and scepticism of the Scottish Enlightenment are still with us. Dunedin, Scotland and Sydney, Australia, resist the collectivist appeals of ‘Tipping point’ sans evidence! How many turned up?

  46. 350 day? I do remember reading something about that being “observed” on Saturday. To be honest, I forgot all about it since. Wasn’t it something to do with everyone turning their lights out to cause a drop in power load, or am I mixing it up with something else? Either way, it looks like a non event.
    Reminds me of that stunt last month involving a telephone call from an action groupie in Trafalgar square to Mr. Broon. What they both have in common is that in the English language you would not refer to crowds, but to individuals. So far I can’t decide whether political leaders will be delighted by the apathy or deflated by it.

  47. http://www.350.org/about/science
    One of the worst article on “science” ever written…
    “Coral reefs could start dissolving at an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450-500 ppm..”
    “The Arctic is sending us perhaps the clearest message that climate change is occurring much more rapidly than scientists previously thought. In the summer of 2007, sea ice was roughly 39% below the summer average for 1979-2000, a loss of area equal to nearly five United Kingdoms. Many scientists now believe the Arctic will be completely ice free in the summertime between 2011 and 2015, some 80 years ahead of what scientists had predicted just a few years ago..”
    And what about the Antarctic????

  48. Jonathan Lowe (00:07:59) :
    Anyone notice that the 350.org website has mexico located in South America, and Botswana located in northern America!

    And by the looks of it the Amazon can be found on the Pacific coast in South America. Anyway it seems that about ±300-400 people showed up in Amsterdam, that’s quite different compared to almost 25 years ago when the Dutch protested against new Nuclear Weapons, when more than half million showed up prostesting that they wanted to have a future without the neutron bombs and cruise missiles of the Reagan Administration.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollanditis

  49. This is what James hansen said in “Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?” (http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126):
    …..Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm, …….
    My understanding of glaciation is “the process of glacier growth”, thus the consequence of CO2 dropping below 450ppm would be a further increase in glaciation.
    Is there a problem with Hansen’s logic here in proposing a limit of 350ppm?

  50. What is is? 350 what? All weee weed up for what this time.
    If it’s supposed to be about global warming, the hoax is showing.

  51. Here in Vancouver, the spiritual home for all Canadian Greenies, Moonbats & Gaia worshipers, the event was a bust.
    Blocked off part of a major bridge with maybe 500 protesters and then had a protest march that further screwed up traffic and pissed off many, many people.
    Very amusing to see the coverage on the 6pm news. It played late, about the fifth story in and the anchor was all but laughing as she read the copy.
    All in all, a very amusing day.

  52. You do realise that the photo that you’re showing of Sydney Opera house from Greenpeace was taken on 16th October.
    http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2759/4016248336_795d18de71.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/42758375%40N06/4016248336/&usg=__d3BkiSASMD4D5xWEYw5EOMKyl4M=&h=259&w=500&sz=124&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=RxFvQoZFlWk6fM:&tbnh=67&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3D350%2Bday%2Baction%2Bopera%2Bhouse%2Bsydney%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1G1GGLQ_ENAU317%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
    REPLY: Well if Greenpeace is stupid enough to stage (early) and post that photo that finds its way into current news (Herald Sun posted the photo in the Bolt article that I reposted here) there’s not much I can do about that stupidity. Greenpeace is unimpressive at most levels these days. They are a substanceless PR machine with an agenda. -A

  53. Pre-industrial levels of CO2 were about 280 ppm, current levels are 380 ppm.
    So Man is responsible for about a 35 % increase in CO2 levels.

  54. 350 day here in (not) sunny Sydney? Well, bugger me (and no snipping – that is a fair word downunder – even the pollies (politicians for those who can use more than two syllables) use it!).
    Never heard of it, don’t bloody care about it. Seems I’m not Robinson Crusoe either.
    I’ve been working all day – making sure there’s enough CO2 to keep those beautiful palm trees in the garden happy!. Can’t wait for summer – maybe it’ll warm up a bit and we can turn the old water-bed down. The last few years have been too bloody cold for me – give me the old days when we had REAL summers!

  55. By the way, there were 42 events in the Sydney: not surprisng that the one at the Opera House was not massively attended
    There were also 18 events in Dunedin, 4 events in Rome and Copenhagen, 7 in Shanghai…
    See for yourself here:
    http://www.350.org/map#/map/50.440951/30.5271814/2
    REPLY: Just another example of just how poorly thought out Greenpeace is. They don’t understand the news media. They won’t attend all 42 events. They’ll attend the one that has the best likelihood of being well attended. Opera House would have my vote. So Greenpeace got what their strategy gave them. One photo, sparsely attended.
    As I said “fails to impress”. The whole concept is idiotic anyway, to get to 350ppm, it would mean shutting down everything and that won’t happen. Go live in a mud hut and eat grass if you wish, but the rest of the world isn’t likely to join in. – A

  56. The demosntrators here in Ottawa froze in the rain; I couldn’t even be bothered to launch a counter-demonstration
    Talking of which, are there any counter-Copenhagen plans afoot?

  57. Beyond being an urban legend, we see evidence of something worse. In 1995 I gave a talk to our local Phi Theta Kappa chapter, and compared global warming to Irving Langmuir’s description of pathological science. There was a remarkable fit at that time, which has become only more remarkable as the creation of various “hockey sticks” shows. Moreover, people are all the more convinced about the certainty of the global warming tale even as one points out the impressive list of very current instances of pathological science (see for example a number of examples I put together at this place) that should give them reason for caution.
    Years ago I couldn’t find the text of Langmuir’s colloquium on the subject, but thanks to the miracle of the unfettered internet, someone at Princeton has put it online! See http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm.

  58. ” Robert Wood (07:52:15) :
    Turboblocke, I assume you think there should be zero ppm of CO2.”
    Why do you say that? On what basis do you make your assumption?

  59. Turboblocke (07:17:16) :
    By the way, there were 42 events in the Sydney: not surprisng that the one at the Opera House was not massively attended
    There were also 18 events in Dunedin, 4 events in Rome and Copenhagen, 7 in Shanghai…
    See for yourself here:
    http://www.350.org/map#/map/50.440951/30.5271814/2
    REPLY: Just another example of just how poorly thought out Greenpeace is. They don’t understand the news media. They won’t attend all 42 events. They’ll attend the one that has the best likelihood of being well attended. Opera House would have my vote. So Greenpeace got what their strategy gave them. One photo, sparsely attended.
    As I said “fails to impress”. The whole concept is idiotic anyway, to get to 350ppm, it would mean shutting down everything and that won’t happen. Go live in a mud hut and eat grass if you wish, but the rest of the world isn’t likely to join in. – A
    My Reply to your reply:a) Greenpeace didn’t organise the 350 Action
    day. http://www.350.org/about
    b) The whole point of having numerous local events, was to avoid people travelling to big events. Geddit?
    c) No, as far as I know cutting carbon emissions does not require us to live in mud huts nor to eat grass. Have you got a link to a paper that shows we would have to?

  60. The UK is generally considered a bastion of climate hysteria, yet strangely I can find only a few snippets of news about 350.org-related events here. The BBC report “about 100” protesters outside the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. (Compare that number, if you will, with the estimated 5,000 to 10,000 taking part in an anti-war demonstration in London yesterday.)
    According to the 350.org website, “hundreds upon hundreds” of protesters were to join together to form a giant number 5, near the London Eye, in Jubilee Gardens. However, I can find nothing about this on BBC, Sky, Reuters, etc. Did this actually go ahead?

  61. 350 obviously refers to the number of people who turned up.
    Presumably in some places they needed a decimal point between the five and the zero.

  62. tokyoboy (22:07:39) :
    “jamel (22:00:38) : ……….this scientist chooses his targets based on politics not science.”
    IIRC, in another thread yesterday someone described him as “mad”. Isn’t the “politics” a typo for “madness”? 😉
    tokyoboy
    It depends.
    This about power and money.
    Not the whimpy kind of power you find in a well organized democracy where the decision making process subjected to majority voting, but absolute touch brute power that puts you in control of the entire economy, markets, financial systems and every facet of the private lives of the people. It is the kind of power with the potential to decide over death or life of entire populations and exploit them to the bone = tyranny
    The “madness” of it is that those who are trying to achieve this kind of power did not learn from history. Through history, people have stood up to tyranny and no matter how hard the battle and how high the losses, have overcome tyranny, simply because people want to be free.
    The people behind the Climate Scam must be vicious opportunists who believe they can take humanity hostage by a doctrine based on lies.
    It will never stand.
    The irony of it is that they will keep making money no matter which scenario is played. They make money if we are at war, they make money if humanity is enslaved and they make money in a free world.
    Obviously they have decided they make the most money if they control everything.

  63. Turboblocke (08:34:24) :
    b) The whole point of having numerous local events, was to avoid people travelling to big events. Geddit?
    c) No, as far as I know cutting carbon emissions does not require us to live in mud huts nor to eat grass. Have you got a link to a paper that shows we would have to?”
    Turboblocke,
    b. I am against any initiative that restricts our freedom.
    Freedom of travel, to go anywhere in the world at an affordable price is one of our basic freedoms to defend.
    Only creating the illusion that traveling in any form is a bad, based on a doctrine promoted by a bunch of people that are to stupid to check the true facts is a threat of our freedom.
    c. Try it. Try to live your life in a zero carbon environment.
    You can’t afford it.
    We don’t have the technology available to make it happen and the alternative energy like wind, solar and bio fuels are a disaster. They don’t deliver what they promise and they are very expensive. The technology to replace oil still has to be invented.
    I want to be free to make my own decisions in life and I will not accept a situation where other people are going to tell me how to live it
    Geddit!

  64. Here in our small city (80,000) of Lethbridge, Alberta there was an event at a church…yes, with 350 bell peals. However, the leftwing, liberal daily rag gave it a half-page spread including a picture of cute chick yarding on a bell rope … no pictures of the throngs of (what?) maybe a dozen or so. The item reported the opinions of someone (surely a world class climatologist), “heightened levels of carbon .. degrade the earth’s climate….increase poverty and starvation …”
    Blah blah blah yada yada yada … but the local rag felt it needed big ½-page spread. I dunno whether to write another “letter to the editor” .. a waste of ink perhaps.

  65. The “warmies” were off by 101 and missed a golden opportunity. Imagine if they had used 451 instead of 350. Then they could have combined CO2 level and temperature into one blockbuster event: Fahrenheit/CO2 451–the sequel to the movie Fahrenheit 451.

  66. The number of people in Sidney who care to protest – 350
    I wonder where all the bubble headed idiots will get their food when we stop making —-everything!

  67. I can’t say much about smelling the deep solar minimum, as solar minimum seems to be over.
    There’s at least 3 recognizable magnetic areas on the magnetogram, seems quite far from the deep quiet earlier this year, I do wonder if the oceans will go back into heat retaining mode taking this from Tallbloke’s theory if the cycle ramps up and we’ll see some much colder SST’s as a result of the heat being retained in the depths.

  68. I mean as a clarification, as a result of the heat being retained in the depths and not being released to the surface and being released.

  69. @evanmjones “… level will rise whereas it had not risen before.”
    With all due respect, I am not sure at all that nature works like a bathtub.
    Won’t there be any saturation effects in nature which bathtubs don’t show?
    However, we all are such no-climate-scientists. We probably better believe what Uncle Big Al is telling us.

  70. The bathtub analogy is crude. It does not take account of saturation or persistence. And it does not take into account that the sinks (the “drain”) readjusts over time. But it does show the basic mechanism.
    The data does show a CO2 increase, and the isotope studies indicate that it is due to anthropogenic causes. The basic premise that adding an extra 3% of CO2 per year does partially accumulate in the atmosphere seems sound.
    I repeat (again), however, that I do not think an increase in CO2 is in any way a problem or a crisis. I would guess that the positive effects outweigh the negative.

  71. tokyoboy (21:40:23) :
    So Copenhagen shall be an assembly of clownery, including our prime minister who said we should aim to curb CO2 emission by 25% against 1990 level by 2020? Surely much fun indeed.

    25% of 2% of 0.0385% = 0.0001925%
    That’s all it takes to save the planet, apparently.

  72. Peter Plail (06:34:57) :
    This is what James hansen said in “Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?” (http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126):
    Your logic is correct. Hanson claims that the precipitous drop in CO2 50M years ago triggered a glacial event (glaciation.) The error is that he refuses to acknowledge natural variability which likely has far more to do with oscillating ice growth and retreat.

  73. In the twisted fantasy of AGW, earth’s concentration of C02 rested in perfect balance until the evil hand of man produced an additional 3% ,(a trace of a trace) which strangely, overwhelms that natural balance, causing a rise in concentration of roughly 1.5% (of the ~380ppm) per year.
    In this fantasy (as with all eco fantasies) earth’s natural balance is extremely fragile and incapable of adaptation, or eventual return to the mean. So we hear rhetoric of “permanent” or “irrevocable” “damage” (which is often actually simple change).
    But natural physical processes aren’t interested in ideology or blame. Any increases in C02 results in an increase of growth from the biosphere. And growth this year becomes part of the baseline from which growth will occur next year. The result should be logarithmic, and eventually this process alone should balance man’s contribution.
    I liked Freeman Dyson’s point that we have no way of calculating the uptake of the biosphere. How could we possibly calculate the uptake (or prevalence of ) each type of flora? Every leaf, every blade of grass?

  74. Kevin Kilty (08:00:55)
    Thanks for the Langmuir account. Hmm…. very small effect … only discernable statistically … with an accuracy beyond measurement….

  75. Layne Blanchardm, you hit upon something that is widely believed, but compeltely eroneous. That is THE BALANCE OF NATURE.
    Nature has never been in balance; if that were the case, there would have been no evolution.


  76. tarpon (06:45:07) :
    What is is? 350 what? All weee weed up for what this time.

    Well, all “weed up” would be ‘420’ (as in ‘420 friendly’)
    Just sayin …
    .
    .

  77. Layne Blanchard (12:53:44) :
    How could we possibly calculate the uptake (or prevalence of ) each type of flora? Every leaf, every blade of grass?
    ————————-
    Easy peasy. Come up with a conclusion that fits in time for the Copenhagen meeting. Tell everyone that you have a big computer and that you’re an expert in models (and especially interpolation). Get your mates to “peer review” the paper, showing that your “model” results are robust and validated. Publish results in some third-rate journal. Put out a press release, and give an interview to the BBC.
    Accurate to at least 3 decimal places. What’s your problem ??

  78. “Ron de Haan (09:25:30) :
    We don’t have the technology available to make it happen and the alternative energy like wind, solar and bio fuels are a disaster. They don’t deliver what they promise and they are very expensive. The technology to replace oil still has to be invented.
    I want to be free to make my own decisions in life and I will not accept a situation where other people are going to tell me how to live it
    Geddit!”
    Yes.
    And adding to that.
    When these so called Climate Change Alarmist Gurus and their Wealthy Elite hypocrite backing fraudsters. Lead by example. Start cycling everywhere, get out of their big power hungry guzzling mansions , their private jets and all the other hypocrisy that goes with it. Along with those same wealthy elite pushing and profiteering from Carbon trading investments. Start selling off all their Oil and other CO2 Power generating energy investments. Then the rest off us may take them more seriously!
    Although we know it’s a load of BS to start with!!!

  79. So, if we contribute 3% of the world’s CO2 per year, and we have to reduce CO2 by 20% from 2005 levels, what does that mean? 20% of 385, or 20% of 3% of 385 ppmv, or just 20% of 3%?

  80. evanmjones (10:54:19) :
    The data does show a CO2 increase, and the isotope studies indicate that it is due to anthropogenic causes. The basic premise that adding an extra 3% of CO2 per year does partially accumulate in the atmosphere seems sound.
    Well, I think the isotope studies suffer from the same sickness as all data pondered upon by climatologists: I have made up my mind, dont bother me with the facts.
    Early research of isotope ratios , as this in 1996, http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1996/TellusBZondervan/1996TellusBZondervan.pdf
    were using the method to tag real polution in regions with heavy industry, a worthy cause. Because the method could be used there it seems that the assumption that globally there are no sources/sinks preferential to C13 was made and used to push the anthropogenic signature globally. Nevertheless there exist natural sources and sinks of C13
    see http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/6/931
    seems to have some info but unfortunately it is behind a pay wall.
    In any case modeling is also used in this field, and modeling means assumptions. I would like a link to a clear exposition of the method and its comparison with global data, and not second and third hand reports from industrial pollution studies finally ending in the IPCC AR4.
    I repeat (again), however, that I do not think an increase in CO2 is in any way a problem or a crisis. I would guess that the positive effects outweigh the negative.
    Of course.

  81. Nobody really wants 350.
    Demonstrators want to demonstrate and politicians want to stand on soap boxes but what everybody really wants in cheap energy now. So 350, just like the flying car for the masses, isn’t happening.
    Not because we can’t do it, but because no one really wants it.

  82. Well that is the first time ever that I have seen a look down shot of the Sydney Opera House; all you ever see is the view with the bridge.
    Man that thing is totally ugly ! I remember whent hey built it all the hue and cry about what a monstrosity they had created. Now I see what they were talking about.

  83. Informative slide show of “350” events at The Guardian.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/oct/27/350-campaign-climate-change-protest
    Most pictures are framed so close that it’s impossible to tell whether protesters numbers managed double figures, let alone three!
    The only really wide shot is the Copenhagen picture (above) – presumably that was the least pathetic one they could find as I’m sure they would have included any shots showing streets filled with rivers of protesters.

Comments are closed.