Peter Reefman

Taken from AGW skeptic Dr Roy Spencer's Blog.

"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Plus this from NASA

"likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance. "

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

So if even skeptical climate sources are confirming that we're about to see global temps go even higher than those of 1998's massive El-nino, do you agree that this is both very compelling evidence of a mankind-induced warming planet, and that we'll see the AGW denialist movement move away from observational temperature data and increase their attempts of discrediting scientists and science itself?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/19/...

"...confirmed 13 fake letters to members of Congress apparently from old people's centres and Latino and African-American groups opposing climate change legislation."

I think the people involved should be jailed.

And a lead-on question to this would be "How do apparently 'normal' people on websites like Yahoo still defend the coal and fossil fuel industry?"

This is a question to those people with the "We're cooling since 1998, or 2005, or last Tuesday..." line.

How is it that the Chacaltaya glacier has disappeared totally at least six years ahead of feared if the globe is in a cooling phase? The Bolivian glacier is a vital fresh water source for La Paz and (previously) the World's highest ski-run. It also helps (helped) feed the region's hydro power scheme, which is the major energy producer. This is a terrible acceleration which if anything proves once again that many warming estimations are far too conservative.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&si...

We need to keep pushing governments to make changes needed to fight climate change, the single biggest threat we've ever faced.

But at the end of the day governments can only do what the voting public lets them. If they try to do TOO much to a public that's not willing to accept those changes, a new government will find itself in power (one far less likely to do what's required).

The denailsts of course know this, and that's their game. Keep confusing the public at ALL costs.

Knowing what's at stake, why is there NO recriminations for straight out lying about climate change? The people doing it professionally (like Frank Luntz did) are doing immeasurable harm by delaying action. They should be tried, exposed, and convicted of crimes against humanity.

Do you agree that we should be getting far more serious regarding people dishonestly denying climate change to confuse the public to reduce political action?

Why the EPA's Finding Matters

It means that clamping down on carbon spewing companies and vehicles is a real possibility. Yet it's important to bear in mind that this is just an endangerment finding—it does not give the EPA the authority to begin regulating greenhouse gases. It does, however, allow that option to become legally feasible. Why?

Because just over two years ago, the US Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants and are therefore covered under the 2002 Clean Air Act—and open to be regulated as other dangerous pollutants are--the EPA just had to confirm the finding, which it never did. Until now. This is one reason that this listing is such a momentous occasion—now Obama has legal grounds to regulate carbon emissions generated by polluting industries and motor vehicles. Or, at least a major bargaining chip in pushing for legislation that would regulate CO2 less stringently.

In other words, this is a giant step in the fight against global warming.

Opinions?

And you'd done enough research of your own to not only convince yourself of human-caused global warming, but also that we were way past all the important tipping points, that you agreed with James Lovelock that we should just enjoy life while we can, and that the rest of the world would also be better off giving up and enjoying life...

Would you take a massive cash 'donation' from a fossil fuel giant to publicly deny human-caused global warming to then help you (and your family) enjoy life??

Most people know about ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation). If you don't, it's the switch between El Niño and La Nina events, has been occurring for thousands of years, and is shown to drive local and global weather patterns, including overall temperatures. In short, El Niño causes global temperatures to rise for a period of a few years, then La Nina brings it back down for a few years.

We're currently in the middle of a La Nina, with signs that we're about to come out and go into another El Niño period.

The previous two El Niño peaks were 2005 and an even stronger one in 1998. We know that those years were the hottest years on record.

And we know that the La Nina in between those was between those - 2000, and... now.

Global Temperature records clearly show that the 2000 average temp was substantially lower than in 2008.

The trend conclusively shows that the biosphere is getting warmer during the two respective parts to the ENSO cycle. And we're now about to enter another El Niño.

Does that concern you?

The theory of AGW is a problem. People who believe it's true see it as a MASSIVE problem in terms of it's environmental impacts, and people who are skeptical of it see it as a MASSIVE fraud and waste of money.

I'd assume that everyone would agree with this (that everyone sees it as some kind of problem one way or another).

A key problem is that someones lying. Well, many people are. In a nutshell it's either the thousands of climate scientists out there in the field, along with the likes of Al Gore etc etc - Or it's the skeptical scientists, think tanks, skeptical op-ed journalists & bloggers, etc.

I'm pretty sure everyone would agree one way or another that there's lying going on somewhere. But where?!

And can the world sit by and let this lying continue? When there's so much at stake??? (eg money and/or environment).

Would it be a reasonable idea to have the entire World's espionage resources engaged in find out who is doing the lying? I mean, if someone has an open public opinion on this that is used to influence governments and/or the general community for political purposes, given that this is SUCH a huge issue (either way), shouldn't we as a worldwide community do all we can to ensure we're getting the truth?

And of course, sholdn't those that are found to be lying for their own agendas (one way or the other) be tried with high treason against the whole world? Against all of humanity?

Are we REALLY committed to this or aren't we?

Look down the questions list. Notice how the same people ask the same questions over and over? Why is this? What drives so many people here spend so much time refuting AGW? I know what they'll say... "Because it's a hoax!" Or "Because it'll cost us all of our money/economy/etc". But, Really... Have a look at this pie chart of the 2009 US federal budget. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/Fy20...

Notice anything? There's NOTHING on climate change in there at all. Yes I'm sure the US government is spending some money on climate change, but it's so insignificant that it's not even a statistic against things like welfare, health, military, education, etc.

It's. Not. There.

"But it's not spending, it's a TAX on US!" I hear the denialists scream. Sure, there will be some sticks out there for greenhouse gas emitters, but there's just as many carrots for those reducing and/or eliminating emissions as well. Carrots and Sticks are there to change the system, not tax more. No government would survive long in power if they increased overall taxes too much. Why don't the denialists realise this?

Besides... How much do you think the MASSIVE economic stimulus package to (try to) cope with the GFC is going to cost us all in long term taxes?...

One last thing. The denialists will say then why are people like ME spending so much time trying to help to reduce manmade climate change? Er, that's easy. I'm very worried we're destroying the atmospheric climate for human (and the vast majority of other species) habitation, and that it will have very large and very bad implications for us all, in especially for our kids and theirs, etc.

Rather than gassifiying coal and separating hydrogen and CO2 (after the other pollutants are removed), and then trying to inject that CO2 deep into the earths crust, would it not be a better approach to slow the pyrolysis process down and cut it short to produce char rather than CO2 gas? That way the carbon could be safely stored in the char and used for topsoil fertilization and sequestration, rather than the effort, risk and WASTE of letting the carbon turn to a very unwanted gas.

Or have I missed something fundamental and have this totally wrong?

Do you think Biochar can be an effective aid in reducing/preventing AGW? Or do you see it as an over hyped 'bio-engineering' road to nowhere?

And for our friends the denialists who will undoubtedly do their thing and say it's useless because AGW is not real anyway, do you at least think it's a good way of adding fertility to soil, producing energy in the form of gas and oil, retaining water in soil, reducing air soot and therefore respiratory problems in developing country cooking stoves, AND while creating cost savings and even profits for farmers, companies, industry, countries, etc. ?

So in short, is it a good thing for AGW AND other reasons, and/or is it a good thing to do even if you don't believe in AGW. I'm asking this in good faith, as I feel that biochar might be something that AGW proponents AND deniers can agree on.

This is a 'companion' question to Astra L's below...

1) Why does the fossil fuel industry, the massive companies (every single one of them) that have the most to LOSE by agreeing with the scientifically supported human induced global warming theory, actually publicly agree with it, even while skeptics are still screaming that the theory is wrong?

2) Why do some people act as if their right to exist is forcibly being taken away from them if someone tries to show them how they can save money and help the environment by being more energy efficient?

3) Your views on the Book "Plan B" by Lester Brown (If you've read it)

4) Generally your views on Global Warming

Thanks

And if you are a regular denialist here and aren't getting paid for it like many others are, do you feel like you're being cheated?

Hi all

I'm about to sign up for a solar PV system (1.435kw using the Sanyo 205w HIT panels). Can't wait!

My question is, I'm really keen to not only see the energy production/useage, but to also capture it on my PC and hopefully even be able to broadcast it onto the web.

The inverter I'm using will be a SMA Sunnyboy 1.7kw. SMA make a whole range of gadgets to do that. Some of them are perfect in function (like their Web-Box + RS485), but are pretty expensive and perhaps overkill for a residential system. The one I'm looking at most seriously is their RS232.

And then there are stand alone devices like Wattson, Cent a Meter, and Efergy.

My question is, does anyone who has experience with any of these tools have an opinion on which way is the best to go? Or if you have a better way to do what I want, please let me know.

Cheers, and over to you...

We know that the fossil fuel companies like to sell their products. It's good for business. We also know they don't like AGW, which, if the scientists had their way would mean we'd be burning less fossil fuel products. Those companies stand to lose a LOT of sales/money ($billions or even $trillions) if AGW is properly mitigated.

And yet, they don't seem worried about it. In fact they even seem to be supporting the scientist's opinions!

So while skeptic op-eds and think-tanks are screaming foul about AGW, the industry with the most money to spend and lose is saying things like... "we know enough now — or, society knows enough now — that the risk is serious and action should be taken." (That was Exxon, while admitting to secretly funding some of those think-tanks)

So why don't they just go out and hire a massive bunch of climate scientists and disprove AGW, if it's as easy as the think-tanks say it is? They have the money to do it, and the money to LOSE if they don't. I'd welcome it, if they can. But they don't. Why not?!

The ratio of skeptics to people that are worried about AGW on Yahoo! Answers is weighted towards the skeptics. MUCH more than out in the real world. Why is it that??

I'm reading a good book from English eco-comedian Mark Watson called "Crap at the environment" which shows a year in the life of Mark struggling to become greener.

One thing (of many) that I love in the book is Mark's newly invented word "Funrifice", which is a percieved sacrifice which turns out to be more fun than the 'old' way.

Examples are walking instead of driving; taking an interstate train instead of flying; playing board games instead of watching TV.

My own current favorite is growing my own vegies. I didn't think I'd enjoy it so much!

I'm sure lots of people have their own. It'd be great to share as going green(er) should be a positive thing, and a list/database of funrifice suggestions would be useful for us all I think.

What's yours?