I'm a greeny and think that the ETS is a crock of faeces

[shrub]

Skeptics say that the change is natural, and challenge the warmers to show that it isn't. They have been unable to do this.

No, they have quite clearly shown that the change is primarily caused by GHG emissions. The deniers refuse to accept this and have been unable to point to any other cause, instead focussing on the CRU emails, inconsistencies in the IPCC 4AR and Al Gore's power bill; none of which cause climate change.

[Jantar]

..... The carbon is captured by the city's recycling rubbish scheme which produces methane. That in turn heats the QE II pool complex as well as bringing in $1 million. .....

How does that work. They burn methane CO with oxygen to produce CO2 and get credits?
2CO + O2 => 2CO2

So not only have they NOT reduced the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, they have reduced the amount of oxygen at the same time. The only rationale (and the one skeptics have long used) is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a plant fertiliser and a gas essential for all life on our planet.

[Jantar]

No, they have quite clearly shown that the change is primarily caused by GHG emissions. The deniers refuse to accept this and have been unable to point to any other cause, instead focussing on the CRU emails, inconsistencies in the IPCC 4AR and Al Gore's power bill; none of which cause climate change.

The proof that conclusively shows this is where?

[shrub]

The proof that conclusively shows this is where?

tut tut, you should know that there is no proof of anything outside of mathematics, however I'll start with a few:

White, 2009. 3.Geoscience of Climate and Energy 5. Ice Cores, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. Geoscience Canada, Vol.36,Iss.2;p.78-80

Ramanathen & feng, 2009. Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives. Atmospheric Environment, Vol 43, iss 1

Zwiers and Hegerl, 2008. Climate Change - Attributing cause and effect. Nature, vol 453 iss 7193

i haven't read these articles yet (although I will), but the abstracts and introductions/discussion sections all point to GHG as being the primary cause of climate change.

I did a quick search on Web of Science through the university and there are dozens and dozens of peer reviewed papers, these were just 3 that were relatively accessible for an amateur such as myself

[Jantar]

tut tut, you should know that there is no proof of anything outside of mathematics, however I'll start with a few:

White, 2009. 3.Geoscience of Climate and Energy 5. Ice Cores, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. Geoscience Canada, Vol.36,Iss.2;p.78-80....

OK, in turn: maybe you should have read them.

White (2009) does not corelate CO2 and temperature directly but cites (Loulergue et al. 2008).

So lets follow that link, and we find that Loulergue is all about atmosheric methane. Whats more on reading White in more detail we find that there is littel emphasis on CO2, but more on GHGs in general. He goes on to say

for example, a notable 5 to 10 ppm drop in CO2 around 1600 AD is contemporaneous with one of the Little Ice Age coolings.

Yes it is contemperous, but the change in CO2 concentration lags the change in temperature. So no casue shown there.

[Jantar]

Ramanathen & feng, 2009. Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives. Atmospheric Environment, Vol 43, iss 1
....

Wow, I didn't even have to read past the introdunction to find

1. Introduction
This article is largely a perspective on the role of air pollution in
climate change. It summarizes the developments since the mid
1970s. Before that time, the climate change problem was largely
perceived as a CO2-restricted global warming issue. Furthermore,
this paper also provides new insights into emerging issues such as
global dimming, the role of air pollution in masking globalwarming,
and its potentiallymajor role in regional climate changes, such as the
slowing down of the S. Asian monsoon system, and the retreat of
arctic sea ice and the tropical glaciers. It concludes with a discussion
on how air pollution mitigation laws will likely be a major factor
determining the climate warming trends of the coming decades.

I shall indeed go on to read this paper in more detail as it appears to show that the CO2 forcing is much less than previously thought, and that air pollution plays a greater role. Isn't this what Winston was referring to earlier?

[shrub]

OK, in turn: maybe you should have read them.

White (2009) does not corelate CO2 and temperature directly.

Strange, in the conclusion to his article he says "The general lesson drawn from these records is that, as predicted by simple radiation balance models, adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere leads to warming of the planet. Human additions to greenhouse gases are very large compared to natural variations, therefore anthropogenically induced global climate change is a simple expectation as opposed to a surprise, and thus not a matter of serious debate."

Now tell me how that supports your position?

[shrub]

Wow, I didn't even have to read past the introdunction to find


I shall indeed go on to read this paper in more detail as it appears to show that the CO2 forcing is much less than previously thought, and that air pollution plays a greater role. Isn't this what Winston was referring to earlier?

I think the impact of particulates as a dimming agent doesn't counter the argument that GHG cause warming and in fact are masking the impact of GHG. But when you read further you will find the following:

"Similarly, the CO2 blanket, traps the long wave radiation given off by the planet. The trapping of the long wave radiation is dictated by quantum mechanics. The two oxygen atoms in CO2 vibrate with the carbon atom in the center and the frequency of this vibration coincides with some of the infraredwavelengths of the long wave radiation. When the frequency of the radiation from the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere coincides with the frequency of CO2 vibration, the radiation is absorbed by CO2, and converted to heat by collision with other air molecules, and then given back to the surface. As a result of this trapping, the outgoing long wave radiation is reduced by increasing CO2. Not as much heat is escaping to balance the net incoming solar radiation. There is excess heat energy in the planet, i.e., the system is out of energy balance. As CO2 is increasing with time, the infrared blanket is becoming thicker, and the planet is accumulating this excess energy."

It would seem I am not wrong then

[Jantar]

I know you don't like blogs but have a look at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/...vin-trenberth/
You will se that the radiation does come back into balance but with a lag.

In addition we can calulate just how much the temperature will change due to changes in CO2.
The standard IPCC formular for calculating forcing due to CO2 is
∆T=4.7ln(c/co)
Note the Ln showing that it is a logrithmic ratio.
This formula assumes that all forcing is due to CO2

If we replace CO2 as the only form of forcing with all GHGs that emit 15 micron radiation, then we get:
∆T=4.7*ln(ghg/ghgo)

Applying these we find that a doubling of CO2 if the only driver would result in ∆T = 3.2Deg C
and if only part of all GHGs then ∆T = .2 degrees C

[shrub]

I know you don't like blogs but have a look at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/...vin-trenberth/
You will se that the radiation does come back into balance but with a lag.

In addition we can calulate just how much the temperature will change due to changes in CO2.
The standard IPCC formular for calculating forcing due to CO2 is
∆T=4.7ln(c/co)
Note the Ln showing that it is a logrithmic ratio.
This formula assumes that all forcing is due to CO2

If we replace CO2 as the only form of forcing with all GHGs that emit 15 micron radiation, then we get:
∆T=4.7*ln(ghg/ghgo)

Applying these we find that a doubling of CO2 if the only driver would result in ∆T = 3.2Deg C
and if only part of all GHGs then ∆T = .2 degrees C

I don't like blogs as a source of information because they are opinion pieces and there is no accountability. Did you know that Dr Roy Spencer works for the DCI group, a public relations firm that, among others, has worked for Exxon and has been implicated in Philip Morris? Excuse my cynicism, and I'm sure Dr Spencer is a frightfully clever chap, but his opinion on climate change is inevitably going to be charged. listening to him is kind of like getting motorcycle purchase advice from an employee of Harley Davidson.

I find blogs a good way of guaging opinion and learning what people think but I prefer to get my information from more neutral sources, or at least sources that can be held to account.

[Jantar]

.... Did you know that Dr Roy Spencer works for the DCI group, a public relations firm that, among others, has worked for Exxon and has been implicated in Philip Morris? ....

Oh?

About
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

[shrub]

Oh?

Let me guess, that quote didn't come from an independent source? Or did it perchance come from the good doctor's own website?

As you point out: "He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil." I wonder whether DCI have asked him to do anything on behalf of Exxon Mobil? Or whether they hired him for his looks? I suspect that given he specifically mentions that Exxon Mobil never asked him to do anything, despite working for their PR firm and having the kind of credentials they would have really wanted, that he was kept at arms length so he could put his hand on his heart and declare his innocence of any bias.

And I'm interested in your response to my quotes from the papers I referenced. You didn't catch me out the way you thought you had, so I am wondering whether you're just going to let the posts fade into the ether.

[shrub]

Actualy it's even more complicated and convulated than I thought. A little digging and I discover that the good doctor didn't actually directly work for DCI, but instead worked for TCS Daily. And "in 2006, two US Senatorwrote to ExxonMobil's chairman and CEO asking that it "end any further financial assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth." The Senators singled out TCS daily as one such group. They wrote that "we are convinced that ExxonMobil's long-standing support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics' access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy"

Interesting stuff. As they say in journalism, follow the money.

Which supports my hypotheses, namely that the majority of anti AGW material out there is strategically funded and managed by big business. I believe that this is to ensure that nothing is done about climate change until they're good and ready. By then they will have developed and patented alternative energy sources and quite probably own the carbon trading world.

[Jantar]

It did indeed come from Drs own website. If you have evidence from an independent source then that would be interesting. He is still employed by NASA and I believe they have a policy of not allowing their employees to have secondary employment in similar or related fields. I suspect that the reference to Exxon-mobil comes from the implied relationship on Sourcewatch, which is also not an independent source.

I shall continue reading the papers you referenced in the morning when I'm not drinking a nice wine.

[Winston001]

How does that work. They burn methane CO with oxygen to produce CO2 and get credits?
2CO + O2 => 2CO2

So not only have they NOT reduced the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, they have reduced the amount of oxygen at the same time. The only rationale (and the one skeptics have long used) is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a plant fertiliser and a gas essential for all life on our planet.

Cheers I still remember a bit of organic chemistry. Anyway, the explanation is that Christchurch generates methane from its recycling plant at Burwood. That means organic matter is used rather than contributing to a landfill and the methane is captured. It is a very effective greenhouse gas having 22 times the effect of CO2.

Yes CO2 is released but not the more complex molecule of methane. Thus the city earns carbon credits which it sells.

http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/ho...dlandfill.aspx