Or as my friend down under, Andrew Bolt, calls it: “Day of apathy”
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. 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:
UPDATE 2
The global day of apathy rolls on in Rome:
And in Kiev:
And Dunedin, just the one:
In Copenhagen, where the world’s leaders will meet in December to discuss slashing emissions – or not:
And Shanghai, city of 17 million, in a country that is now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases:
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:
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.
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”?
As of this writing, they’ve only managed 661 news stories and have fallen off the Google above the fold section.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
350 – is that the number of AGW morons it takes to screw in a light bulb?
@Evan Jones “… 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.
See my article
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/10/350-day-failing-struggle-for.html
for comments where “350 ppm” came from, how Gavin Schmidt thinks that it misses the point, how he was attacked for these statements, how huge CO2 concentrations were seen in the geological history, how huge CO2 concentrations are needed for us to feel it, and so on.
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.
Paul Boyce (03:26:56) :
Perfect!! But does this mean that you are bothered?
Michael (skeptic)
25% of 2% of 0.0385% = 0.0001925%
That’s all it takes to save the planet, apparently.
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.
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?
Kevin Kilty (08:00:55)
Thanks for the Langmuir account. Hmm…. very small effect … only discernable statistically … with an accuracy beyond measurement….
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.
Well, all “weed up” would be ‘420’ (as in ‘420 friendly’)
Just sayin …
.
.
The 350th day of the year is December 16th 2009 – which is during the middle of the Copenhagen meeting:
http://www.erantis.com/events/denmark/copenhagen/climate-conference-2009/index.htm
Perhaps they expect to have signatures on that day… Even the organisers couldn’t photoshop a decent amount of people into their pictures:
http://www.erantis.com/events/world/350/index.htm
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 ??
“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!!!
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%?
Soupy Sales died?
Oh my god.
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.
[Whether you are or you aren’t yourself, you are using a politically charged term in a pejorative manner, even if tongue in cheek. ~ ctm]
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.
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.
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.
Isn’t it interesting that the Rockefellers are behind this?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2173-rockefeller-brothers-fund-global-warming-protests-as-earth-cools