My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Scientists at RealClimate busted for twisting data | Main | First, global government, then personal ID numbers »

Comments

David Wratt

Ian: I'm not sure that a press release from one organization claiming to summarise findings from a paper written by people from another organization is a particularly robust source of information. I'd rather go straight to the original journal paper. My understanding of the van der Werff et al paper in Nature Geoscience is that they are suggesting:

* Emissions from deforestation and forest degradation for 2000-2005 (excluding peatland emissions) are about 27% less than the value given in the IPCC WG1 2007 report.
* Emissions from fossil fuel combustion have increased substantially over the same period.
* As a result deforestation and forest degradation emissions contribute about 12% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions (updated from 20%).

The first bullet above is rather different from the claim in the press release that this study concluded emissions from deforestation "have been overestimated by at least a factor of two".

Regards - David Wratt

Ian Wishart

Good to see someone else keeping these hours, David.

You say:

"What the biosphere is "soaking up" is a fraction of the emissions - not the whole lot. That is why we've experienced the 37% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
since pre-industrial times"

Yes, but the fraction has remained constant, so the biosphere's ability to absorb extra CO2 has grown at the same rate as emissions have.

As for the press release issues, I'm reporting accurately what the study authors are pitching as the key points of their discovery.

But you are right, it is a double edged sword. Perhaps information given in all media briefings should first be peer-reviewed to ensure a briefing doesn't oversimplify the issues. :)

David Wratt

Ian: The Knorr study claims that about 60% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans and the land biota. This would mean that the number of tonnes / year of anthropogenic CO2 absorbed by the oceans plus the land biota has increased at only 60% of the the number of tonnes per year by which anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased. Hence the 37% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times. Regards - David

Pattrick Smellie

Great finally to be accused of being left wing. Must try more of this, Pattrick Smellie

iwishart


I see you don't deny the chardonnay bit or the handwringing. As for being accused of being "left wing", RoarPrawn beat me to it, sadly:


 


"Patrick Smellie is left of the totem pole as well"

Pattrick Smellie

More of a beer drinker really.

iwishart


You're kidding, they make chardonnay flavoured beer now?

Pattrick Smellie

Apparently they hand-wring it specially.

robk

:-D

John Boy

"...smart tech and agriculture..."

It stalls rather than fixes anything. Thomas Malthus saw that back in 1798 and although there's been leaps in food production technology since his doomsday mid 1800's prophecy there seems no new magic potion to take us on from 2009. There will always be hungry people and regrettably I suspect that suits the mega wealthy elite.

What's possible requires will but I suspect the will isn't there at the right levels. Gore's wealth could sponsor a country but that costs whereas clipping the status quo ticket pays.

BammBamm

*The 1/2 life for CO2 in the atmosphere is around 10.4 years- as determined by private studies on residuals with chloroplast studies.

Man Man Global Warming is Fraud.
Other scientists will tell you this also ... including Nobel prize winners.

BammBamm

I always have a bit of a giggle at government experts and 'CO2 scammers' in Wellington with their carbon trading rips planned.

Even 'Sir' Peter Gluckman sticks to the global warming 'parrot' line like a true believer. However - the science is more interesting and complex than the kooky Government Science Advisor ... who the other day publically admitted he had no idea how to solve or remedy the culture of science failing of NZ Universities and Industry.

And you'd trust this man on 'climate change' - Not a chance!

Gluckman has little expertise with interdisciplinary science, and doesn't even understand the basics of the science he is dealing with.

Another big problem with the arguments mentioned above above - is that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Wakey Wakey children.
Water vapour contributes more to global thermal normality than CO2 ever could.

The Maths: I've got real issues with the Climate Kooks - I would love to challenge some here to pick up some chalk and derive away on the blackboard some of the basic mathematics and physics behind the 'MMGW' climate model.
Most of them can't - they just parrot Doctrine.

So - if you can't do the maths - and you don't know what you are talking about - then what the hell are you doing here telling the rest of us to pay for MMGW? Which doesn't exist?

Every NZer will have to pay around $100,000 each for the 'climate change' scam.

People won't be able to buy food - or eat- because the farmers will pass the costs on. None of these people are even thinking very hard at all.

Just remember that 10,000 years ago - at the end of the last glaciation, the sea level was 128 meters lower than it is now.
That works out at 1.28cm per year rise in sea levels.

Far be it from me to point out that real scientists can't get a word in edge ways when the climate crazies are running around pushing their own fiscal scam agendas, and the universities are full of MMGW converts that CAN'T THINK FOR THEMSELVES!

While I'm slightly abhorrent towards Ian on his Christian beliefs interfering with my kind of research, an am going to come out here guns blazing and back him up on this climate change fiasco.

There are too many ignorant people without enough letters behind their names, nor the practical and advanced training to even start talking on this topic.

If there is to be any real change - then the dickheads at the top of the public trough have to be weeded out - and replaced with science orientated people that can analyse, derive - and UNDERSTAND the science behind the arguments.

Otherwise we will have MMGW climate change losers driving this country into financial history.

AcidComments

"Gluckman has little expertise with interdisciplinary science, and doesn't even understand the basics of the science he is dealing with.

Another big problem with the arguments mentioned above above - is that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Wakey Wakey children.
Water vapour contributes more to global thermal normality than CO2 ever could.

The Maths: I've got real issues with the Climate Kooks - I would love to challenge some here to pick up some chalk and derive away on the blackboard some of the basic mathematics and physics behind the 'MMGW' climate model.
Most of them can't - they just parrot Doctrine."

Didn't Gluckman say he only did a month research on Climate Change?

I've had personal dealings with some of these top experts of the Gluckman types and they turn out to be pretty much useless.

Rather funny when you find out they're all just hot air and make the story up on their claimed knowledge as they go along. Otherwords out and out lies. Or their actual real knowledge base just happens to be 60-80yrs out of date and all they can do is rundown their other colleagues and Claim they're the World's leading expert!

Higher up the expert is in a particularly field. A common thread often emerges. It become less about the actual known facts and more about pure 'personal opinion on the subject'. Along with a lack of proper research and investigation.

Parroting doctrine is right. Squawk. Like those who just quote from the Nature publication.

CM

Conspiracy, corruption, conspiracy, corruption, Accusations accusations accusations. It's all meaningless unless you can back it up with a considerable amount of hard evidence.

>>>>Water vapour contributes more to global thermal normality than CO2 ever could.<<<<

Which scientist(s) argue otherwise?

BammBamm, can I ask - what relevant climate science qualifications and experience do you have, and what current research are you involved in?

BammBamm

Yes you can - but I won't answer details because if I'm identified I will be screwed over.

As for the corruption Question.

Follow the Money ... which is namely why on the front page of yesterdays paper '$92,000 per person for climate change'. etc

Now, Ian, can you please tell me where all this money is specifically going, and to who, and whom is giving it?

When you solve invented greenwashed climate problems with shonky 'carbon credits' you know it is a scam.

PS: Unfortunately science is all about opinions Acid, and the taxpayer coughs up the coin for it.

AcidComments

"Conspiracy, corruption, conspiracy, corruption, Accusations accusations accusations. It's all meaningless unless you can back it up with a considerable amount of hard evidence."

CM,

Are you quite happy then with the Climate Science research claims which turn out to to be based on fraud, falsifications, over exaggerations and fantasy computer models?

Are you happy with this scenario?

'Global temperature rise by 2050, as predicted by computer models, if CO2 emissions are not curbed: 1C.

Global temperature rise by 2050, by those same models, if CO2 emissions meet Kyoto Treaty targets: 0.94C.

So what's the fricken point of wasting NZ$110 Billion?

Thomas Everth

Acid: "Global temperature rise by 2050, as predicted by computer models, if CO2 emissions are not curbed: 1C.

Global temperature rise by 2050, by those same models, if CO2 emissions meet Kyoto Treaty targets: 0.94C."

What you seem to not understand is the trend. If nothing is done, the temperature will keep rising, possibly into territory well beyond 2Deg.
Kyoto and follow up treaties are designed to limit that to 2 Deg max. You will not see a cooling or a sharp change in the curve but the temp should level off at or below 2Deg warming by 2100 or so.
The way you phrase the issue is missing the point of Kyoto completely.

The point is about the end of the curve, not some point somewhere in the middle.

AcidComments

"What you seem to not understand is the trend. If nothing is done, the temperature will keep rising, possibly into territory well beyond 2Deg.
Kyoto and follow up treaties are designed to limit that to 2 Deg max."

That's the point.

It's fantasyland stuff. projected by Computer models. 2C, 4C, 6C or 11C. You can make the trend to be whatever you want the data to say the temperatures are going to be by 2050, 2100. Highly unreliable. Useless.

Besides. It's laughable. You Cannot control the temperature by 2C.

We could take a leaf from the Netherlands and start relocating some of our own official temperature reading sites. Just by moving them from nearby urban heatsink sources. They've had a temperature drop of some of their readings by 0.5C. Just by doing that. No CO2 emission reductions needed. :-)

Then there's this.

Georgia Tech: “50 percent of the [USA] warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes rather than greenhouse gases”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
2009/11/11/georgia-tech-50-percent-of-the-usa-warming-that-has-occurred-since-1950-is-due-to-land-use-changes/

CM

BammBamm

>>>Yes you can - but I won't answer details because if I'm identified I will be screwed over.<<<<

Unless your name is actually BammBamm, I don’t see how you’d be screwed over.
Your comment about water vapour also doesn’t suggest you’re involved in climate science research…..;-)

>>>>As for the corruption Question.

Follow the Money ... which is namely why on the front page of yesterdays paper '$92,000 per person for climate change'. Etc<<<<

You make as little sense as Acid. You are talking about proposed political solutions, and simply taking Labour’s spin as gospel (which I suggest you’d NEVER have done when they were in government). But ‘follow the money’ in science doesn’t work so well because people can see the holes in bad science.

>>>>PS: Unfortunately science is all about opinions Acid, and the taxpayer coughs up the coin for it.<<<<

You seem to be confusing science and politics. Probably the most used contrarian tactic of them all.

CM

Acid

>>>>It's fantasyland stuff. projected by Computer models. 2C, 4C, 6C or 11C. You can make the trend to be whatever you want the data to say the temperatures are going to be by 2050, 2100. Highly unreliable. Useless.<<<<

Nobody claims there aren’t uncertainties. But uncertainty isn’t our friend here, and anyone that suggests otherwise is just fooling themselves.

>>>>Besides. It's laughable. You Cannot control the temperature by 2C.<<<<

Blatant misrepresentation.

The comments to this entry are closed.