Lomborg deserves his reputation as The Skeptical Environmentalist – his books poke holes in many dogmas society holds dear, often through the use of statistics. But I find he’s not skeptical enough. While he has expended great effort over many years questioning proposed solutions to climate change, he has yet to apply skeptical thinking to the very premise that manmade climate change even belongs on his list of global challenges. Read more here.
Opinion
A Note on Precautions: Bob Carter
In order to take precautions, you have to know what you are taking them against. Some computer models project that the global temperature in ten years time will be warmer than today’s. Other computer models project that global temperature will be cooler ten years hence. Read more here.
Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic: Michael Hammer
I HAVE been asked several times ‘why am I so sceptical of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis’? There are many reasons, some of which I have documented in previous articles at this weblog, but these have relied on sometimes complex calculations which I admit can be difficult to appreciate. So I would like to outline here a few of my reasons based only on simple consistency with the AGW proponents’ own data.
1. The AGW movement claims there has been a global temperature rise of 0.5C over the last 60 years and that this is due to increasing CO2. Both AGW proponents and sceptics accept that the relationship between energy retained and CO2 concentration is logarithmic (a constant increase in retained energy for each doubling of CO2). The AGW movement data also shows that since 1900 CO2 has risen by very close to half a doubling over this 60 year period.
IPCC have claimed in their 4th assessment report (summary for policy makers), that the most likely temperature rise by 2070, when CO2 will have risen by a further half doubling to twice the level in 1900, is a further 3C rise (page 12). Why would the first half doubling give 0.5C rise while the second half doubling gives 3C or 6 times as much rise?
2. One claim I have heard is that it takes the climate a long time to respond to the change in CO2 concentration and we have not yet seen the entire rise from the first half doubling. The same IPCC 4th assessment report (page 12, 13 and 14) indicates that if CO2 were stabilised at the current level, the temperature would rise by a further 0.2C over 2 decades stabilising at 0.7C above the 1900 level.
If the current temperature rise is not yet at the equilibrium level then for the business as usual scenario the temperature rise by 2070 will also not be at the equilibrium level. Yet the IPCC data suggests the equilibrium rise from the first half doubling is not even one quarter of the less than equilibrium rise from the second half doubling. To me this is illogical.
3. IPCC claim an increase in retained energy of around 3.7 watts/sqM for each doubling of CO2 (1.66 watts/sqM for the current rise page 4). They admit this is much too small to result in a 3+ degree temperature rise. The large temperature rise is based on claims of very large net positive feedback in the climate system. [Read more…] about Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic: Michael Hammer
More Smearing of Scientific Scepticism (Part 2)
THERE was a most extraordinary feature story and then interview last night on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s popular late news program with well known reporter and television presenter Leigh Sales giving American journalist Chris Mooney publicity for his new book and a generous amount of air time to explain that anyone who doesn’t believe in anthropogenic global warming is scientifically illiterate and ignorant. A friend and colleague Andrew McIntyre send Ms Sales the following email in response: [Read more…] about More Smearing of Scientific Scepticism (Part 2)
More Smearing of Scientific Scepticism
IT was once the case that if you didn’t believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and the climate crisis you were a scientist in the pay of big oil. That was also an accusation in Chris Mooney’s first book ‘The Republican War on Science’.
Mr Mooney now has a second book out entitled ‘Unscientific America’. I haven’t read the new book yet, but according to an interview Mr Mooney gave last night on Australian television if you don’t believe in AGW you aren’t even a scientist. Indeed he told well-known ABC journalist and television presenter Leigh Sales that while society hasn’t agreed on the facts, the scientists have.
Ms Sales initially queried Mr Mooney, suggesting that many claim there is no scientific consensus on AGW. But she didn’t then pursue the point when Mr Mooney reframed, side-stepped the question and then contradicted himself. [Read more…] about More Smearing of Scientific Scepticism
Energy Targets and Australian Politics: A Note from Cohenite
CLEAN coal increasingly appears to be neither scientifically feasible nor economically viable. The only real alternative for Australia is nuclear yet those most concerned about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) oppose it.
Clean coal is the process of trapping carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal to prevent those emissions from entering the atmosphere. Local expert John Harborne, in a recent article, notes that the energy cost of trapping the emissions is almost equal to the energy produced from burning the coal and the area required to store the trapped emissions exceeds the area of the mined coal.
For its part the Federal government has introduced the Renewable Energy Target [RET] to combat the alleged problem of AGW. The RET mandates that twenty per cent of base-load energy must come from renewable energy [RE] by 2020. The Greens support this and with the fallacy of clean coal now revealed are demanding that all base-load energy come from RE. [Read more…] about Energy Targets and Australian Politics: A Note from Cohenite
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation.