Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Blog

Dust Storm Hits Central Eastern Australia

By

dust car cutAS I look outside the sky is orange with dust.  It irritates the nose and eyes, tickles the throats and sits heavily on the chest.  And I am inside.

According to all the news reports visibility is 10 metres at Broken Hill to the far west and 100 metres in Sydney just 150 kilometres east of where I am.   Australian Bureau of Meteorology spokeswoman Jane Golding says gale force winds have whipped up the dust from Australia’s drought-stricken inland and spread it east.

According to ‘Out of the West: A historical perspective of the Western Division of New South Wales’ by Dick Condon (Published by Rangeland Management Action Plan, 2002) there were severe dust storms in 1902-03, 1937-39, 1983, 1993, but the worst were during the period from 1943-1945.  Some of these storms were often continuous day-in-day-out for several days.  [Read more…] about Dust Storm Hits Central Eastern Australia

Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic: Barry Moore

By

Barry Moore cutTHE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports are a collection of mind numbing statistics from which they claim “solid scientific proof” that man made CO2 is causing global warming. From these statistics empirical formula have been generated which form the basis of the computer programs that are then used to “prove” the empirical formula.

This is circular logic and the output of a computer cannot be used to prove the validity of its programming inputs.

The only way an empirical formula can be validated is by experimental results or by strict mathematical proof based on accepted scientific laws.

Not one of the predictions made by some 29 computer programs in the past 10 to 15 years even remotely resembles the climate of the past 10 years.  
[Read more…] about Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic: Barry Moore

Bjorn Lomborg Not Sceptical Enough

By

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.

A Note on Precautions: Bob Carter

By

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

By

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