On Friday morning at TippingPoint, there were two presentations. One I’ve already written up and the other was entitled Climate Change: Where We Stand.
It was delivered by Professor Jean Palutikof, Director of Australia’s National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility at Griffith University in Brisbane. The facility is charged by the Federal Government to provide the best information on climate change to those who have to make decisions about Australia’s response to it. There was a mention of a Nobel Prize in her intro by MC Dick.
Dr Palutikof’s presentation was structured around four questions to do with climate change: 
- Is this something we’ve just thought up?
- What’s the effect of adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere?
- What’s going to happen in the future?
- What can we do about it?
Her answer to the first question was a resounding pfft. She pointed out that we need CO2 and methane in the atmosphere because without them the planet would be far too cold to live on at all. The problem, she continued, is that we’ve been adding extra so that outgoing radiation from the earth no longer makes it to space and bounces back in.
The idea of the greenhouse effect is over 100 years old. It was first brought up in 1895 by scientists Svante Arrhenius and Arvid Hogbom and no one really paid much attention. Then in 1928 Guy Callendar began writing scientific articles about global warming. His take was that it would be beneficial because it would delay the return of the glaciers.
Questions two and three are being answered progressively from all areas of science (see the geologist’s presentation write up for one area doing this). Question four, Dr Palutikof discussed in some detail.
The two categories of things we can do about climate change are mitigation and adaptation. She stressed that we must do both as climate change has already happened, is already happening so we need to adapt; and we need to mitigate further effects because if we keep causing this accelerated climate change, nothing will survive.
Even though it’s hard to imagine our little actions making any difference, Dr Palutikof believes that adaptation happens from the bottom up with things like installing water tanks, planting native gardens, insulating roof spaces. If everybody did these and similar things, it would make difference to the whole world.
But there also needs to be top down actions like improving coastal defences, adapting building and planning standards, greening cities, and building climate adapted houses. She warned against maladaptations such as air conditioning and desalination plants as they are not always environmentally kind solutions. She impressed upon the crowd that mitigation takes time and no matter what, there will be residual impacts. However, without adaptation, nothing will work.
She informed us that Australia is one of the most climate dominated countries in the world, and is definitely the most climate dominated developed country. Nowhere else has policy and legislation as influenced by current and projected changes to climate the way things like the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the 2009 Victorian bushfires Royal Commission. The Murray-Darling document’s recommendations are based on the assumption that there will be 10% less water in the basin due to climate change, and the Commission report focuses on adapting to the reality of bush fires becoming more intense, more common and more widespread as a result of climate change.
Dr Palutikof’s final message was about the uncertainty around predictions in warming and the general sense of what climate change means for us. She left us with a quotation from The Economist, a conservative US magazine one would expect to put down climate scientists as hysterical hippies:
Action on climate change is justified, not because the science is certain but precisely because it is not.
You can see all my Tipping Point posts under the Tipping Point tag.
rogerthesurf
15 November 2010
“Action on climate change is justified, not because the science is certain but precisely because it is not.”
Not sure how that quotation fits with your blog but this is why I think we need reasonable proof of anthropogenic global warming before we start doing what the IPCC demands.
Because of my expertise in economics, I can see that the IPCC CO2 emission reduction demands will have the same effect on us as if we ran out of fossil fuels completely within a short time frame. In other words there will be economic collapse which means starvation for us and our families.
This is someone else who has come independently to the same conclusion but says it better than I can.
http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/global-warming-scare-industry-suppresses-benefits-of-co2
Good reason to be sure about the science? What do you think?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
sarahj
22 November 2010
Hey Roger, thanks for stopping by and commenting! I love comments
The quotation is included in the post because it was recapping a presentation and the quotation concluded the presentation.
Anthropogenic global warming is proven beyond reasonable doubt and has been for several years; it’s just that the scientific community has failed to communicate this fact very well to the rest of us. Check out this post on the presentation by geologist Dr Stephen Pekar from the first day of Tipping Point Brisbane for the whys and wherefores.
Simon Divecha
22 November 2010
That’s rather like not insuring your house because you think there’s less than a 1% chance of it burning down. How many people do you know who own a house and don’t insure it?
Not many….
And the chances of humans emissions damaging the very systems we rely on for good lives, economies and environments (not to mention the other beneficial and intrinsically valuable aspects of this) are well over 1 percent. More like 99%++
Some numbers here: http://greenmodesustainabilitydevelopments.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-arent-we-convinced.html
rogerthesurf
22 November 2010
SarahJ
Thanks for the invitation to comment.
“Anthropogenic global warming is proven beyond reasonable doubt and has been for several years”
First of all I have to ask how open minded you are? Would you be willing to discuss the above statement?
Would you be upset if I refered you to 10′s of thousands of scientists who disagree with the above statement and also refered you to many hundreds of peer reviewed, published, scientific papers who refute just about every aspect of AGW theory?
If you are of open mind, I will put you in touch with these sources, however you may find it upsetting that such things and people exist and prefer not to have your beliefs unchallenged. Thats fine too.
Perhaps at least I should warn you that in this day and age it is best to do your own research and use your own mind to form your opinions rather than have faith in what people tell you.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
sarahj
23 November 2010
Well, your water-tight logic and broad mindedness have convinced me. So instead of taking on board the findings of a team of international geologists who spend half their lives in Antarctica deep core drilling and analysing prehistoric ice cores I’ll instead believe a random blogger calling himself an economist and visiting my random blog to tell me in the most patronising way possible that I’m closed minded, ignorant, and will only be truly enlightened if I agree completely with him. Thank goodness you arrived in time.
Thank-you so much for your offer to put me in touch with your sources. It’s so generous of you to share information available on the internet! Thank-you also for assuming I am unaware of the existence of such things. All the assumptions that you have made about me are startlingly misguided, but that’s OK. Most people are pretty misguided, but only some of us are able to acknowledge it.
If you find you are unable continue to participate in this conversation without presenting yourself as a patronising twat, that’s OK too. But if that is the case, you are no longer welcome to do so.
rogerthesurf
24 November 2010
SarahJ
In my country the word “twat” refers to a woman’s vagina. I dont know what it refers to where you are.
I thought my offer to discuss your statement “Anthropogenic global warming is proven beyond reasonable doubt and has been for several years” which is simply erroneous, (unless you know something that I do not) was in polite language with an ample option for you to decline.
So SarahJ, are you prepared to share with me all these things that make you so sure of yourself when you offer the above statement, or is it true that you are simply parroting something else that someone told you, without putting that little brain of yours to work?
As this conversation is turning interesting, I will post it at
http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com
where, as you may observe if you visit, I post many conversations with people such as yourself. Would you believe it? Not one has yet justified the above statement or been able to point to reasonable evidence to support the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis, upon which all of AGW stands.
With only one exception have I ever been able to discuss logically the problems with the AGW movement. Almost invariably I get called names and insults are sent my way etc.
The one exception, which was with one very intelligent person (who does not subscribe to my views) gave rise to a very good conversation. Why not visit that blog? http://amanwithaphd.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/a-lot-of-heat-is-going-into-the-ocean/
My point is, that if you are absolutely secure in your own mind on the logic and evidence of AGW, why this reaction? Why not discuss it politely as I suggest?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
accidie
23 November 2010
Oh, Roger
I’ve looked at your blog. That’s your best shot? Argumentum ad hominem? A silly, somewhat distasteful cartoon? Some charts produced by an Appalachian mining engineer? A petition boasting the signature of EDWARD TELLER – a man so divorced from reality that he was the model for Dr Strangelove? And it trumpets that it has the signatures of 31,487 scientists, no less, which you assert looks like most of the scientists in the US. God god, man, there’d be that many in Melbourne. And 9029 of them with PhDs.
As it happens, I’ve got one of those myself. Not in science, so I can’t comment with scientific authority on AGW. Nope, mine’s in philosophy, which means I’m amply qualified to comment on whether an argument is reasoned and logical.
I’ve got bad news for you …
Now, off to check the bona fides of these petitioners.
rogerthesurf
24 November 2010
Do you realise that you guys are following an ex railway engineer?
Cheers
Roger
sarahj
24 November 2010
Who’s the ex-railway engineer and what’s the relevance of this?
Mello
23 November 2010
He, he he he – heee heee heee! Hahaha – oo hoo hoo!
I’m sorry I just read Kirk Myers’ aricle on CO2.
If I didn’t have the ominous sense that it would take 20min of my life (that I will never get back!) I might bother to refute each claim.
Instead I think it will suffice to quote this really cool blogger I read sometimes,
“So instead of taking on board the findings of a team of international geologists who spend half their lives in Antarctica deep core drilling and analysing prehistoric ice cores I’ll instead believe a random blogger calling himself an economist…”
Or better yet, maybe I should believe “A 27-year veteran of the advertising and public relations professions…”(1) (that’s Kirk Myers for those who haven’t followed Roger’s link)
BTW, accidie, WORD!
1. http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/kirk-myers
sarahj
24 November 2010
Roger, your second comment was patronising, rude, and presumptuous and not inviting of anything resembling politeness. Your third one is a little better.
I think you missed something in my second reply though: the part where I informed you I’m aware of the scepticism around various aspects of current climate change, just as I’m aware of the evidence for humans causing the recent dramatic changes, and have formed my own opinion. You can continue to assume that I disagree with you solely because I’m ill-informed and have a ‘little brain’, but you have now been told otherwise – twice.
I’ll leave you to your ‘open minded’ discussions with people who are on your level.
rogerthesurf
24 November 2010
Sarahj,
So great to know that you are so aware of the evidence for humans causing the recent dramatic changes!
Its good to know that you regard yourself as adequately intelligent, perhaps even more so.
So this must mean that you know of and understand some empirical evidence of the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis. (upon which all of AGW relies)
This is something that I have been searching for for more than 12 months now.
If you can share this crucial evidence with me I will be very much in your debt.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
sarahj
24 November 2010
Educating people determined to be ignorant and unpleasant about it to boot isn’t something I’m interested in. If you haven’t been able to find evidence in over a year, I don’t think anyone can help you.
rogerthesurf
25 November 2010
Oh Sarahj,
What you are really saying is that you have no evidence supporting the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis and you have accepted that the hypothesis is true by believing people who have told you so.
It does not appear that you have formed “YOUR OWN” opinion at all but have accepted it as some sort of faith.
Sorry to say this but if you do not know who the ex railway engineer is, you don’t know very much either. Not that it matters too much where a career starts and I would not criticise Pachuri at all for his relatively humble beginnings.
Refer to that epitome of scientific accuracy and authority wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri
However I would criticise him for his Nobel prize when his organisation claimed that the Himalayan Glaciers were only going to last til 2035 and when an independent review of the IPCC literature found essential parts had either no academic references, were from unreliable sources and/or were not from peer reviewed scientific literature.
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/IPCC-report-card.php
Cheers
Roger
sarahj
25 November 2010
If that is what you insist on perceiving, be my guest.
M Roche
25 November 2010
I don’t think Sarah said any of the above Roger – it does however prove quite a warped sense of perception and indignant belief on cherry-picked data and scientific blips. In order to bring some balance, uou are hereby equally accused of blind faith in a desperate group of deniers arguing against the bulk of scientific consensus, as you have done on this blog to others.
You, Roger, ignore far graver evidence of falsification and fabrication by your own side, even when there is smoking gun evidence that your champions (not railway engineers unfortunately – and who frankly cares) have secretly taken money from fossil fuel companies to make false claims.
The vast body of climate science still shows that manmade climate change is real and that it presents a massive challenge to human survival.
[Insert SNORE] Pachauri can be blamed for his wrongdoing – but that’s quite old news wouldn’t you say? Why not engage in dialogue to support your research that debunks manmade climate change? Scientists themselves give future temperature forecast models a 90% certainty. If I was a betting man I’d put everything on those odds.
Unfortunately for you Roger and for your grandkids (poor sods), all other IPCC glacier forecast data around the world have been re-verified: glaciers are in decline due to manmade climate change!
You have so far proved that with a couple of links you, along with the rest of the climate change deniers have an acute ability to cherry pick data? That’s not proving a lot Roger.
Mello
26 November 2010
Roger,
“Perhaps at least I should warn you that in this day and age it is best to do your own research and use your own mind to form your opinions rather than have faith in what people tell you.”
I agree that it is best to go to primary sources and form your own opinion on issues. I think this is probably something that has always been a good idea not just something to think about ‘in this day and age’. I think, however, this is beyond the limits of practicality for something as complex as climate science. If your ‘expertise in economics’ at some stage involved attending university you may be familiar with the process of robust research. Just to make sure we’re on the same page I’ll explain my understanding of robust research. (I am a medical doctor so while I am not a true scientist – more an applied scientist- I think I’m pretty familiar with the scientific approach to research, which is what real scientists use to investigate climate change). In a nutshell, you pick a topic and read every article ever written on it. You critically appraise each article, looking at the research methods and reasoning used in each and then include the scientifically valid ones in the synthesis of your opinion. If you decide to write this opinion up into a review article you provide your readers not only with references but with your search strategy so that they can see which sources you did and didn’t include. Call me arrogant, but I’m pretty sure I don’t have a ‘little brain’ and I can’t even manage to do that kind of research on most things within medicine. I am very impressed that you have managed to read and critically appraise the statements/research of “…10′s of thousands of scientists who disagree with the above statement…” (recap – that AGW is proven beyond reasonable doubt) as well as “…many hundreds of peer reviewed, published, scientific papers who refute just about every aspect of AGW theory?”. Wow. I wish I could manage my time as well as you and not only work full time in one field but also become an expert in things that usually require years of university. I have my doubts that someone without at least a basic grounding in science could have the background knowledge to accurately interpret such scientific papers, but let’s leave that possibility out of our discussion for the moment.
My strategy to forming my opinion on important issues for which I have little to no background knowledge (eg climate change) and will not likely be making potentially life saving decisions about, is to read review articles and initally rely on the position statements of professionally robust organisations. An example of sources that this would not include would be opinion pieces written by people who have no real knowledge of the area they are writing on, such as PR professionals writing about climate change. I then make an opinion – I always think of my opinions as provisional because who knows what great things we will learn that will change our world views in the future – and then whenever I become aware of a sceptic I follow their sources, appraise, and decide whether to include any aspect of them in my opinion. So far, no one’s been particularly convincing in the climate change sceptic area.
Since you wanted sources – here’s one you might find helpful. It’s a review article directed at the educated lay person but includes links to primary sources:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
Enjoy
rogerthesurf
26 November 2010
Mello,
I am quite happy to have a civilized discussion with you about how I arrive at my conclusions (which is not unique to me alone I must hasten to add).
The only catch is that SarahJ may start spamming my comments once the questions/assertions get too hard to counter so I suggest we move to my blog where I never spam, edit, delete anyones comment unless it is obviously irrelevant spam or obscene.
Yes I am familiar with good scientific process and I appreciate the points in your comment and am happy to discuss things appropriately.
Drop a comment at my site and we can go from there without the chance of interuption.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
sarahj
26 November 2010
Roger, I don’t delete comments from my blog; nor do I manually filter things as spam that aren’t actual spam. I’ve actually had to manually approve about half of your comments as they were caught in WordPress’s spam filter due to the number of links you include. (FYI If you set up a profile properly, your handle would link straight to your blog and you wouldn’t have to run that risk.) I think if this ‘civilised discussion’ continues, it should stay here and continue to drive up my stats instead of yours.
Also, I doubt Mello is interested in continuing what you think is a discussion on your site or in fact anywhere. This morning she has explained eloquently and in detail things that I couldn’t be bothered to explain to you over the last few days that are obvious to everyone else, namely:
1. that the sources you have such faith in are inherently flawed
2. why I and all the other commenters here choose to believe scientists in climate-related fields over you and your sources
3. that you are not an expert or any more of an authority on climate science than she is, or I am
4. that your methods of forming an opinion seem to be faulty as you seem to form opinions first and then find evidence to support them.
M Roche and Accidie have said similar things, but I’m not sure you understood them as you didn’t respond.
The one thing no one has so far mentioned is that that your attempts at civilised discussion are actually quite personal attacks on me. You say you have these ‘discussions’ with other bloggers often. I doubt they view them in the positive light you say you do.
I am sure you disagree on this last point will continue to believe you occupy the high road. There’s nothing I can do about that. Just don’t bother telling me. I’m bored just thinking about it.
rogerthesurf
26 November 2010
Well,
SarahJ thank you for reassurance. On that basis if Mello wants to continue here thats just fine with me.
I am further impressed (NOT) bty the way you backup your assertions with academic and other reliable references.
You may notice that my previous posts consist mainly of questions, of which your answer rate is nil. Any assertions I actually make are always with a logical, factual and/or academic study support.
In terms of personal attacks, one of which you likened me to a woman’s vagina, you surely wouldn’t mind if I call YOU a twat as well. Is only fair I am sure.
You may assert that the above personal attack was unwarranted, well so was yours in the first instance.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Cheers
Roger
EmBetty
26 November 2010
Roger I’m glad you specified twat means a woman’s vagina and not a man’s vagina. Could have been some confusion there. Also writing NOT at the end of sarcastic sentences has not been done since the 90′s and makes you sound like an obnoxious 12-year old.