By Viv Forbes
A scheming cabal of green bureaucrats, academics and corporate speculators is trying to scare us into a mess of energy taxes, subsidies and rationing in order to combat what they call “catastrophic man-made global warming”.
Climate alarmists speculate that if the level of harmless carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is doubled (which may or may not happen in a century or so), world temperature may be one or two degrees warmer than it would have otherwise been.
The proposition that this mild warming, if it occurs, would be “catastrophic” is so laughable that they had to invent “positive feedbacks” to multiply this scare to maybe six degrees in a century. However the emerging evidence, and Earth’s past history, show that feedbacks are negative – the vast oceans tend to stabilise warming temperatures so that even the two degree forecast is probably excessive.
In many places in Australia, temperature rises about sixteen degrees from dawn to mid-afternoon – over say eight hours, or two degrees per hour. So people who can cope with a daily warming of 16 degrees over 8 hours are supposed to panic about a fudged forecast of two degrees over a century – about the warming we feel in just one hour every morning. Even less “frightening” is the less than one degree of warming that has occurred over the last 200 years.
Why worry about warming anyhow?
The world has never suffered “runaway global warming” even when carbon dioxide levels were far above those of today. But it does suffer regular ice ages. It is not warmth that causes hardship and mass extinctions – it is the deathly grip of ice. The Little Ice Age that ended just 150 years ago was a time of failed crops, abandoned farms, advancing glaciers and famines. Even in modern times, there are more deaths caused by winter cold snaps than by summer heat waves. And those people free to move (tourists and retirees) always flock to warm places like Florida, Bali and the Riviera, not to frigid climes like Siberia, Alaska or Antarctica.
Moreover, more warmth always causes extra evaporation from lakes and oceans. What goes up, must form clouds and come down somewhere as extra precipitation. And if there is more carbon dioxide and water in the atmosphere, plants will grow better. Why do we need carbon taxes and ration cards to protect us from a warm moist climate with more luxuriant plant life?
The whole climate scam is just a smoke screen to hide the UN inspired grab for more taxes and more power.
Viv Forbes,
Rosewood Qld Australia
I am happy for my email address to be published.
All I can say is that I’ve been out western NSW when its been dry, and I seriously wonder how anything can exist out there. Its must be a very marginal existence.
stefan
“that water evaporates and fights against the dry heat created in the center – minus that small contribution = dry heat will increase and come closer to Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane ”
roflmao.. you seriously have to ‘enjoy’ central NSW and Vicortia on a ‘warm’ day. then you might understand.. moisture in that area is a non-entity most of the time in a dry summer., both Sydney and Brisbane are coastal cities and vary enormously depending on the direction of the wind. Continuous days of westerlies in summer, in either city, are not pleasant. They weren’t in the 1960’s, 70’s and they are NO DIFFERENT now, but the afternoon on-shore sea breezes are a blessing, even if the do stuff up the surf.
Melbourne can get really hot, doesn’t get the onshore breezes because its a fair way from the ocean. Adelaide can apparently be even worse, and has limited rainfall to boot.
“dry heat will increase and come closer to Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane”
ps.., here is more widespread moisture in the country regions due to current irrigation than there would have been several decades ago. It can only have a cooling effect. NOT a drying effect.
Stefan “dams produce hydro-electricity. ”
please think… Dams cannot be used for both water storage and hydro electricty. they are conflicting attributes.
Yes, we do have small hydro plants on some of our dams. Sydney’s Warragamba Damis a water storage dam, as is Melbourne’s Thomson Reservoir. Whivenhoe near Brisbane tries to be both a flood mitigation and a storage reservoir, and has failed to do either properly over the last several years.
Only the dams in Tasmania and the Snowy Mountains are used extensively for hydro, and they do not supply water to any major capital cities.
Hi Viv,
Your are so right.
But not to forget absolute temperature differences worldwide varying from minus 89oC up to more than plus 58oC!!!!
That`s a staggering 147oC difference!!!!
And they are talking an catastrophic rise of plus 0,6oC for the last 100 years???? hahahaha
Ben van Kol
Barendrecht/Holland
LazyTeenager,
“Moreover, more warmth always causes extra evaporation from lakes and oceans. What goes up, must form clouds and come down somewhere as extra precipitation.
———
Sure, but where does it come down? The Australian economy has just recovered from a series of massive floods in one year. The floods took 2% off the GDP.”
You remind of the guy that turned down a million dollar a year job. When his wife berated him why the turned down such a lucrative job, he replied: “Are you crazy? Think of all the tax I’d have to pay!”
Warmth and moisture were great times indeed!
Who remembers those balmy days during the Jurassic, when CO2 levels were many times higher than today? Lush green plants ran rampant, almost from pole to pole, nourished by an endless supply of rich CO2 and abundant rainfall.
What’s not to like!
If “they” are successful and pass these taxes, what will “they” say if an ice age begins? What will they say if it continues to warm?
re: LazyTeenager says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:27 pm
“The whole climate scam is just a smoke screen to hide the UN inspired grab for more taxes and more power.
————-
Utter BS. The trend under all governments, both left and right, over the last 25 years has been reduced taxes.”
For the record:
UK govt spending as % GDP 1987 – 38.4%, 2011 – 45.7%
US govt spending as % GDP 1987 – 35.1%, 2012 – 40.3%
Incidentally, US govt spending as % GDP 1903 – 6.8%!
sources: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com; http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk
It’s getting colder (in the Antarctica anyway) 🙂
http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/news/index.php?id=41
Really!? You mean that?
I believe we should consider that all of your remarks have equal merit then…
I am curious, what kind of anti-glacial effects do you see heading to the poles from the tropics based on your 2C ice age argument? And don’t try the old frighten us with stormy weather events approach. Storms do not put 1-2 Km of ice/water on top of land and we can construct storm proof structures.
Steve, are you selling us an extreme weather event as a climate fact? Not only that, but you are also selling us a 2C increase in temperatures equals the Chicago heaat wave of 1995?
I am disappointed. I think very highly of your math prowess, but your critical thinking leaves me gobsmacked sometimes.
Basically, under any definition the 1995 Chicago heat wave is an extreme weather event.
Highlights added by myself.
Now Steve, How many of the deaths attributed to the heat wave were because:
Refusing to open windows?
Power outage?
Inadequate Ambulance Service?
Inadequate notice of extreme heat (though I think most of these people figured it was hot on their own)?
Unable to afford the electricity?
Unable to afford transportation elsewhere?
Lack of local “heat shelters” where people could go to for relief?
Attributable to higher particulate matter levels in stagnant air masses?
Just plain irascible elders who despise A/C and only turn it on for special guests?
Or any combination of the above or myriad reasons.
My Father never turned on A/C of his own accord. If a close relation, other than his wife, asked for A/C his deafness increased in direct proportion to the queries. If the Pastor showed up and asked if it could be cooler, he’d turn it on while the Pastor was there and turned it off immediately after. At night he qould turn it on, because his wife asked, but he’d complain that he can’t sleep. Great guy, but still a touchy old bear.
All in all, I think there is a far better chance of good survival if electricity stays cheap, heat shelters are opened, much like cold shelters, storm shelters, blizzard shelters…
I did like this statement from the paper I quoted above; http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geo622/paper_heatwave_Karl1997.pdf
Hotter in the 1930s huh?
I wonder where I’ve heard that before? Before Jimmy the activist got to them… /rhetorical
I think the whole global warming fraud has a much more sinister aspect than most people realize. The world as we know it is almost mostly controlled by a oligarchical imperial system and a free educated population has no room for this lot. What better way is there to maintain a world empire than to have control of all aspects of the global economy with a carbon cap and trade system.
To Anthony Watts:
This post appears on your blog. Should we interpret this to mean that you endorse it? Agree with it? Think it is interesting? Possibly wrong but worthy of discussion?
I am finding your blog a more and more confusing place to visit. Genuine scientific skepticism seems to be being increasingly displaced by political arguments and stuff like this which borders on conspiracy theory.
Posting material on WUWT without comment suggests some level of endorsement. Yet this piece is worlds apart from the measured and rational approach of your recent PBS interview. It seems to me that WUWT is becoming a free-for-all where any opinion (however wild) that disagrees with CAGW can get posted. It doesn’t seem to matter when posts flatly contradict each other as long as they all dismiss or propose some alternative to at least some element of mainstream climate science. The critics who accuse WUWT of aiming to spread doubt and confusion may have a point when opinion pieces like this are posted without comment.
I’d love to know what you think of the statements made in this piece.
Nigel Harris
Nigel, when you say, “It seems to me that WUWT is becoming a free-for-all where any opinion (however wild) that disagrees with CAGW can get posted.” it seems to strongly imply that you’re speaking of a pronounced and growing trend. Perhaps it would help folks understand the basis of your claim better if you offered a few background examples for support?
– MJM
Nigel says…
“where any opinion (however wild) ”
I see nothing “wild” about the opinion expressed by Viv Forbes.
Its all just pline common sense.
pline = plane.. (you do not want to hear me try to play keys !!!)
= plain DOH !!!!!
Good theme.
LIA ending 250 years ago might be more accurate.
Not only will there be more moisture, plants will need less of it.
In case you’re not familiar: Plants need CO2 to construct sugar and other organic molecules, so use stomata (little valves) on the underside of leaves to take it in. This permits water to escape, which must be replaced. (This is the ‘pump’ that drives plant circulation, so a certain flow is necessary.) When there is more CO2 in the air, plants get by with fewer and smaller stomata, which reduces evaporation from leaves, and hence their water requirements. Another way to look at this is that a given amount of water can support larger or more numerous plants when CO2 is higher.
Now you know.
michaeljmcfadden says:
October 1, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Nigel, when you say, “It seems to me that WUWT is becoming a free-for-all where any opinion (however wild) that disagrees with CAGW can get posted.” it seems to strongly imply that you’re speaking of a pronounced and growing trend. Perhaps it would help folks understand the basis of your claim better if you offered a few background examples for support?
– MJM
Gosh, where do I begin? Well, for starters I have seen numerous comments on this site criticizing the majority of climate scientists for having a pro-CAGW bias, yet 0 mention is made of the fact that this guest post writer spent his entire 40 year career in the coal industry. http://www.stanmorecoal.com.au/corporate_directors_and_management.aspx
How that makes him any kind of expert on climate change is beyond me – unless guest posts from all professions are welcome – chefs, accountants, pediatricians, etc. And regarding issues of bias? Please.
Let’s look at some of the comments Viv made: “The proposition that this mild warming, if it occurs, would be “catastrophic” is so laughable that they had to invent “positive feedbacks” to multiply this scare to maybe six degrees in a century..” Hmmm, so the idea that melting permafrost can cause higher rates of methane release is invented? The idea that melting Arctic sea ice can cause increased solar absorptance is invented? The idea that melting glaciers and snow packs will cause similar absorptance is invented? That’s example #1
Viv said: “Moreover, more warmth always causes extra evaporation from lakes and oceans. What goes up, must form clouds and come down somewhere as extra precipitation.”
While I am not a climate scientist, that seems like a fair statement. Of course, it ignores the issue of too much precipitation, ie the increased incidents of flooding that are projected for many parts of the world. And it conveniently ignores that fact that more evaporation is not a good thing for inland locations, and in no way helps generate precipitation for those locations. That’s example #2
Your question/example No 1 shows only that you disagree with their postings and therefore they shouldn’t be put up. You don’t make the rules here and you don’t have to deal with the consequences of running a blog site badly.
Example No 2 You think that those dry lands won’t appreciate some more water and the current wet lands won’t figure out that building on flood plains is a problem with a solution. The second part of two is so silly that I know you wished you had paused before hitting the key.
Keith,
No, that is incorrect. I am totally fine with, say, Anthony Watts posting an article criticizing a climate study for using UHI influenced data sites, or someone questioning whether Artic ice actually has a higher albedo than open water. I may disagree with those positions, but at least there is some scientific framework around which to have a discussion. Perhaps I have misunderstood the intent of this site.
Your comment on my example 2 makes no sense. I was saying that inland locations – like those of the US which has suffered extreme drought this year, are in no way assisted by warmer weather when they lack adjacent large bodies of water from which evaporation can occur. Explain to me how increased evaporation along the US coast is going to lead to increased rainfall in Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc? Same thing for the interior regions of Africa, which are projected to experience more drought if temperatures rise.
Chris, I don’t know why you’re answering for Nigel, but you didn’t actually respond to my question. Nigel stated that “WUWT is becoming a free-for-all where any opinion (however wild) that disagrees with CAGW can get posted.” which implies a lot more than a simple disagreement with a single guest posting. I was not asking for criticisms of THIS article — I was asking what other articles indicated that WUWT was “becoming” a free for all with wild opening articles being posted as WUWT material.
I do not have a strong background opinion in this area. A few years two ago I would say I’d probably have been 60 to 70% a “warmer.” Today, I’m probably about 70 to 80% a “skeptic.” This is partly due to the excellent material in the primary posts at WUWT as well as the level of commentary attached to them, and partly due to seeing the parallels in the fight against “True Believers” that I’m familiar with in my own chief area of concern: the promotion of hysteria around secondhand, thirdhand, and umpteenth-hand smoke. I’m well aware of how difficult it can be for a layperson not deeply versed in the science of a debate to really see through the propaganda presented by advocates. Because of that awareness, and because I’ve seen the same tricks played by the warmers (fuzziness of language, playing the “Save The Children” card, ad hominem accusations of hidden ulterior competing interests, sound bite media imagery, reluctance to allow questioning of core tenets, etc.) as I’ve seen in the antismoking movement, I’ve moved more toward being a skeptic.
In terms of my own horses in the race: regarding climate, none. Regarding smoking issues see my book site at http://antibrains.com and read the Author’s Preface and the Bio.
– MJM
Chris:
This is one of the strangest assumptions I’ve heard recently, well, right after 4 molecules of CO2 (.04%) re-radiate captured energy and cause 9,996 molecules of air (99.86%) to heat up so much that they then heat the earth and ocean and raise the temperature globally by .67% (2C) to 2% (6C) which forms the buttress of CAGW alarmist claims.
What does a person’s career have to do with science? Is it your opinion that once a person chooses a career then that makes them unsuited or incapable of working in other areas of science?
So you desire to be relegated to one career/specialty for all of your life and everyone should denigrate you and belittle your attempts in other knowledge spheres?
Neither science nor scientists are contrained by your personal opinions of a person’s role in life.
Michael,
Fair point, your comment was for Nigel to answer, not me – though I have the same opinion as Niigel in the 3 months I have read this site. To finish answering your question, another post that imho falls into the same category is a recent one by Caleb Shaw. He writes well, but when you boil it down, you get: the world is a wondrous, complicated place, one we should continue to be curious about. There are good scientists and bad scientists. And a long section about ice, it was very hard to understand what point he was trying to make. The overall message – stay curious and open minded. If that’s not fuzzy language, I don’t know what is.
You say: Because of that awareness, and because I’ve seen the same tricks played by the warmers (fuzziness of language, playing the “Save The Children” card, ad hominem accusations of hidden ulterior competing interests, sound bite media imagery, reluctance to allow questioning of core tenets, etc.) as I’ve seen in the antismoking movement, I’ve moved more toward being a skeptic.
You say ad hominem accusations of hidden ulterior competing interests. So it’s OK for readers here to continuously attack the motives of scientists (greed, prestige) but it’s not ok to raise the question of competing motives of someone who spent 40 years in the coal industry?
Now let’s look at Viv’s posting: warmth is good, moisture is good, CO2 is good, cold is bad. Does that not strike you as being so overtly simplistic as to to be almost useless? For example, the cold in the Arctic helps cool the US in the summer, it has a substantial influence on the jet stream. And, of course, he is wrong, we have had global warming before – at one point the atmosphere was 50C, back when CO2 levels were much higher. But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good message.