Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Climate change not imminent danger

Opps,
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC seems to have spilled the beans here:

There is no clear evidence that global warming is an imminent danger to the world, says Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But even so why not continue to cut emmissions even though thre is no clear evidence of danger to the world:

Even so, it would be good for governments to go further with proposed cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions to deal with dire predictions made in a 2007 panel report, he told the Associated Press in an interview on Tuesday.

It would be good? so what, it doesn't really matter, but it'd be good if it happened?

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Johno,

It's your old uni friend here. You'll know who from my writing style. Merry Christmas mate.

It's been a very busy year, so I've taken a bit of break from your blog, but plan to do some catch up reading over Christmas.

Did you read the books I recommended?

A couple of quick comments mate though to stir you up a bit:

Air pollution is bad by definition. The pollution in Tokyo is so bad that it is rarely possible to see Mt. Fuji from surrounding areas where it was once possible. People living in the Nagoya area where they make many of the worlds top selling cars (it is the home of Toyota) are at a much higher risk of suffering from ashma than people living in other areas. It is difficult to take a deep breath in downtown Tokyo unless it rained the day before (luckily it rains pretty regularly, which is one of the reasons I can put up with the pollution). I have personally experienced many sympthoms which we could debate the source of all day, but I feel are due to the pollution - from a continuously blocked nose to sore eyes and hay fever.

I hope to return home to the lucky country that you are living in one day in the not too distant future, but in the meantime I need to live with Japan's pollution. It is a large reason for my wanting to return to Australia - it is a "deal breaker".

It is very important to reduce pollution to maintain a good healthy living standard for all people. And if it means reducing the destruction of our environment and the rapid depletion of resources, then it should be supported.

I can not think of any reasonable rationale for not supporting individuals, governments, companies, etc. to reduce their air polluting emissions (i.e. ALL of the nasties, including CO2).

Jonathan Lowe said...

Hi mate how ya going? I didn't read those books. can you let me know which one's you are talking about? did you watch my movie flick?

Mate, I completly agree with you on reducting pollution. I think that everybody in a polluted city will agree.

Australia on the other hand, is far from being polluted so does this mean that we shouldn't worry about reducing it? This doesn't mena we should increase pollution either, but I dont think anyone would complain if the pollution levels in Australias major cities stayed the same instead of spending billions of dollars to reduce them by 5%.

And anyway, who says that CO2 (or simply carbon, as most people strangely like to call it now), is a pollutant? Co2 is naturally in the atmosphere and is needed for plants to carry out photosynthesis. In fact the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the better the plants are, or from their pov, the less polluted the world is.

I've got no problem with reducting pollution in places where it obviously needs it. I was in soeul 6 months ago and the place is terrible. But it's quite fine here in Melbourne. There's no catastrophic pollution problem here.

Anonymous said...

There is no clear link between asthma and air pollution. If anything there is an inverse relationship. Cleaner air causes more asthma. For example, Tasmania has the highest asthma rate in Australia, and Australia has much higher asthma rates than many much more polluted European countries, such as the UK.

To call CO2 a pollutant is silly. It's vital for all life on Earth.

What alarms me is the environmental destruction by both omission and commission in the name of preventing 'climate change'.

Perhaps on your way back from Tokyo you will fly over the truly enormous areas of SE Asian forest being cut down to grow palm oil for bio-fuels. The size of these plantations carved out of the rainforest are staggering.

Phil

USpace said...

.
Pollution is bad, but CO2 is not pollution. Throughout history cold periods have been the worst times for humanity, warm ones have been better for human prosperity.

The CNN Meteorologist saying that the Man-Made Climate Change theory is "arrogant" is a great advancement in the cause of educating the masses with the truth. Hopefully more of the MSM will start speaking out. The word is spreading, tell all your friends and family, and tell them to do the same.

Gore and his Man-Bear-Pig. The politicians on board with this scam must be simply out of their minds.
For one thing, there’s plenty of oil and NG, we just need to drill for it and refine it. Also expand and improve nuclear, wind, hydro, solar and hemp fuel.

Can’t anybody talk some sense into Gore, McCain, Bush and Obama about how temperatures rise first, and THEN carbon-dioxide levels rise.
Carbon-dioxide doesn’t cause warming, sun activity does, warming causes CO2 levels to rise.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
humans’ breath is poison

just one child hurts the world
worse than a jet engine

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
don't research all theories

put an end to all debate
silence all your critics

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
spread hysteria

wildly exaggerate
scare little kids not ready

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
keep people all worked up

about global warming
despite inconvenient facts
.
All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech there can be no real freedom.
.
The Great Global Warming Scam Movie
.
Philosophy of Liberty Cartoon
.
USpace

:)
.

I'm Hernadi-Key said...

Yellow submarine to probe Antarctica glacier !!!

PUNTA ARENAS, Chile (Reuters) – A yellow robot submarine will dive under an ice shelf in Antarctica to seek clues to world ocean level rises in one of the most inaccessible places on earth.

The 7-meter (22 ft) submarine, to be launched from a U.S. research vessel, will probe the underside of the ice at the end of the Pine Island glacier, which is moving faster than any other in Antarctica and already brings more water to the oceans than Europe's Rhine River.

Scientists have long observed vast icebergs breaking off Antarctica's ice shelves -- extensions of glaciers floating on the sea -- but have been unable to get beneath them to see how deep currents may be driving the melt from below.

They are now stepping up monitoring of Antarctica, aware that any slight quickening of a thaw could swamp low-lying Pacific islands or incur huge costs in building defenses for coastal cities from Beijing to New York.

http://hernadi-key.blogspot.com

come on join with me to fight GLOBAL WARMING.. we can exchange link for it..

Chris said...

Worth checking for temperature trends in Western Australia since 1876 ... http://www.waclimate.net

This blog is referenced via http://www.waclimate.net/bureau.html

Jonathan Lowe said...

Thanks Chris. Good data there, but it all can be recieved from the ABM which I already have. But thanks anyway.

Chris said...

Have you checked the raw temperature data in "The Climate of Western Australia 1876-1899" compiled in 1901? The BoM considers pre-1910 data too unregulated and unreliable for a valid comparison, but it's still an interesting peek at the only official temperature records we've got from the colony days. 25mb PDF...
http://www.archive.org/download/climateofwestern00cookrich/climateofwestern00cookrich.pdf

Chris said...

The comment form doesn't seem to want to take a long URL so I'll try again ...

http://www.archive.org/download/climateofwestern00cookrich/climateofwestern00cookrich.pdf

If that fails, the links are at

http://www.waclimate.net/index.html#colonial

Jonathan Lowe said...

Hi Chris,
yes I've got data that goes back to 1850. The BOM give out this data, but dont show it in their graphs. Analysis of this data clearly shows two things, it was a a lot hotter then than now, and also the amount of variability month to month is huge, indicating that it probably isn't the most reliable data.

Chris said...

Jonathan ... I still think it would be interesting to compare the actual data documented from 1876 to 1899 to see how it compares with BoM figures back to 1850. Incidentally, can you point me toward the BoM pages where I can find their data back to 1850?

There does seem a fair bit of evidence that the 1800s in Australia were hotter than most of the 1900s. Since the BoM considers all pre-1910 data to be invalid, I've been poking my nose into the palaeo-scientific records. From what I've seen so far, the most striking data comes from a study cited by the CSIRO showing estimated northern Sea Surface Temperatures from 1600 based on coral core isotopic analysis from the Great Barrier Reef ...

http://www.waclimate.net/imgs/csiro-palaeo-temps.jpg

That graph is sourced from the CSIRO document "Building a future on knowledge from the past: what palaeo-science can reveal about climate change and its potential impacts in Australia", downloadable from ...

http://www.waclimate.net/palaeo-report.pdf

By the way, your research is good and this blog is linked from ...

http://www.waclimate.net/bureau.html

Jonathan Lowe said...

nice post Chris. Good too see I got a mention, and I do indeed like the link that you posted with regards to the CSIRO study.

You can't actually get Pre 1910 data from the BOM websites. Instead you have to request it, which costs around $15.

Information in regards to this is Found here . Email someone in the area and you can purcahse data in pretty much any format you want. Such data goes back to 1850.

With regards to further analysis, I am going to show within the next few months the magnitude of my analysis and showing the massive effect that cloud cover has had on temperatures, which is not even touched on in the climate models.

Chris Gillham said...

$40 now instead of $15. The data isn't as complete as within the original 1901 document but all the figures match.

I've whipped together some charts from the pre-1900 Western Australia temperature data, as well as min/mean/max charts from all the 1910-2008 key WA locations approved by BoM.

And just to keep me off the streets, I've also updated my mean annual min/max temperatures for the 12 months to March this year for the 32 towns and cities in my WA temperature trend analysis. I noticed a slight cooling from the 12 month to Feb figures, both within the drier southern half and the wetter northern half of the state (over the past 30 years). The Wyndham minima reflect the increased northern rain clouds - average mean minimum of 24.3 degrees from 1931 to 1960 and just 21.9 degrees over the past 12 months.

Whatever, it's all at http://www.waclimate.net

123 123 said...

Cool post as for me. It would be great to read something more about that topic.
By the way check the design I've made myself London escort

Anonymous said...

Great opinion you got here.
It would be intresting to read something more concerning this topic.
Thanks for inform that information.
With best regards Lora!
Kiev escort