Recently, we learned that beavers and ground squirrels are Bad for “climate change”. The obvious solution is to kill them in order to reduce nature caused changes to the climate. Now, myself and Jo Nova are being facetious. Not so for some Warmists when it comes to rabbits in Australia
The rabbits of Christmas past: a present that backfired for Australia
On Christmas Day 1859, the Victoria Acclimatisation Society released 24 rabbits for hunting, to help settlers feel more at home.
Given the millions of dollars in damage to agricultural productivity that ensued, as well as the impacts on biodiversity as the rabbits bred and spread to cover 70% of the continent, this could be seen as Australia’s worst Christmas present.
Now, given our current climate change commitments, controlling rabbits could be “Santa’s little helper†in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The rabbits eat vegetation, which means less plants, which causes climate change, blah blah blah, and planting trees and plants is expensive, so
Some significant gains might also be achieved by reducing the damage caused by some of our most serious pest animals.
That’s right, said Warmists want to kill off the rabbits. Not all of them, mind you
Rabbits inhabit most of the 143 million hectares of Australia’s Mulga woodlands. If their populations can be controlled, then there is considerable potential for natural carbon sequestration to help us meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Just enough to deal with the fake issue of anthropogenic “climate change”.
Which part of man-made global warming don’t you understand? What part is “fake”?
The Earth is warming from the CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere. It’s actually pretty simple.
From time to time Deniers Deny that the Earth is warming. But it clearly is. Deniers Deny that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, but that’s been known for a century. Deniers sometimes Deny that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from human activity. But it’s been proven to be from our burning of fossil fuels. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere (a 40% increase in the past century or so) which has caused the Earth to warm. Unless we reduce the amount of CO2 we’re adding, the warming will not only continue, but will become worse.
Humans, not rabbits, are responsible for global warming.
Perhaps Elmer Fudd was on to something.
It’s clear to me that if the rabbits reproducing is a problem, then the warmists need to devote all of their resources to developing condoms sized for rabbits, and then distributing these to the rabbits and further teaching the rabbits how to use them.
It makes about as much sense as anything else they want to do.
“Increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from humans burning fossil fuels.” Some of it, sure. “Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere which has caused the earth to warm.” Sorry, J, no proof of that, other than screwed up computer models which really aren’t proof anyway. “The warming will continue…” Someday warming will continue, and someday cooling will continue as it’s been doing for 4 billion years.
For the past 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 has stayed between about 200 ppm (glacial periods) and 280 ppm (interglacials). It’s now 400 ppm and climbing.
Lots of proof, you just choose to Deny it.
It is warming now and it will continue. But you are correct that one day it will cool and Earth will likely experience another glacial period. Based on the orbital cycles that trigger glacial and interglacial transitions this is tens of thousands of years away. Global warming will be dangerous in your lifetime and the lifetimes of your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
What happened on Earth 4 billion years ago or 1 billion years ago is irrelevant to today. Human civilization is only about 10,000 years old. During this time the climate has been quite stable.
It’s not about rabbits–it’s about guns! The absence of guns. The Australian government swooped in and stole every single gun in the country from the hands of private citizens. If you want to use a gun on your ranch 1,000 miles from nowhere–you have to have permission to use, to buy ammo,etc. I would bet it close to true that most Australians today are realizing what a mistake they made when they voted to rid the country of guns! Then there are those little rat/mice things that literally cover the ground in some places–how do they help global warming? Even the deadliest snake in the world–they are not allowed to run over with the car when the snake is crossing the highway–oh no! If they see the damn thing in their backyard, or on their porch they have to call the “snake wrangler” which entails waiting around the house for a couple of hours. Oh, and that python that just crawled into your kitchen, or fell out of your attic–yup–call the snake wrangler. And, of course now they have the little problem with China’s new aggressive territorialism–you want to protect yourselves–call the good ol USA.
Out of my cold, dead . . .
On September 28th 2013 the IPCC intergovernmental Panel of Climate change announced in their report that there has been no global warming in 15 years! James Hanson former head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) stated to BBC that the world’s average temperature has risen 3/10’s of a degree in the past 30 years. Climate Change believers refer to this as the “global warming hiatus” Please google.
That is why most people do not know the worlds adverage temperature because it is never mentioned in any global warming story or press release. The Arctic is now in it’s thrd year of continuous ice growth from the melt off of 2007 to 2012 which some attribute to back to back el nino’s. Antarctica is at a 35 record high of ice growth. Polar bears are doing very well and are not declining.
see:
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/Environment/ID/2505129180/
World temperature is currently 14.45 C up from 14.37 in 1998. Statistically insignificant.
Traditional climatoligists believe that the sun warms and cools the pacific ocean which in turn warms and cools the earth in 20 to 30 year cycles.
A 20 year warming cycle ended in 1998 and a cooling cycle began however, this time the temperatue did not cool but remains relatively stagnate.
Satelite weather monitoring began in the late 1980’s that more accurately measured the earth’s temperature. They determine the earth was 1/10th of a degree warmr than previopusly thought. There has been no increase in drought, floods, tornatoes, or huricanes according to the National U.S Weather Bureau. The U.N. has a political and ecconomic agenda that they used the theory of Climate Change to advocate. However the theory has not panned out, so they hope to achieve their agenda before the rest of the world realizes the theory is no longer valid. Most press releases fail to mention studies, or scientist by name and all fail to mention the world mean temperature. Doing so would alert the world to a lack of warming.
Jeffery, what was the cause of past global warming before man? I will grant you maybe Al Gore, Leo Whatshisname and Barack Obama contribute to global warming by their multiple trips and mansions but most of us don’t have such large carbon footprints. Right now, I pledge to not let my carbon footprint become larger than any of those three. Done, I feel so good!
Phil Taylor,
You’ve presented an accurate recitation of Denier lore.
Can you cite your evidence? Here’s the Working Group 1 Summary.
http://www.climate2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
That would be 0.1C/decade. The average over the past century is about 0.08C/decade. The RSS and UAH satellite databases show the Earth warming at about 0.13C/decade for the past 35 years. http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
What statistic did you use to calculate statistical significance? In any event, that’s an increase of only 0.08C since 1998. That’s why we call it cherrypicking. Surprisingly, since 2000 the temperature has increased 0.2C! If you scoot your starting from the record El Nino year to two years later the temperature takes off! That’s why actual climate scientists measure over longer periods.
This is just false. See figure 3 from http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Close. Antarctic sea ice extent IS growing! The Antarctic ice sheet, like the Greenland ice sheet, continues to shrink. The Arctic is losing ice much faster than the Antarctic is gaining sea ice.
The rest of your screed is merely your opinions, which you are entitled to.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/
I’ll pretend you are interested in knowing. The interglacial periods (e.g., the current Holocene epoch) are triggered by cyclic changes in the Earth’s orbit that change the distribution of heat, especially in the Northern Hemisphere.
This is what caused the end of the last glacial period. During the first half of the Holocene the temperature reached a broad peak and has been slowly cooling for the past 6000 years or so. The so-called Medieval warm period was a slight blip in the long-term cooling. The current rapid warming over the past century is likely the warmest the Earth has been during the Holocene. There is no scientific reason to expect the temperature to drop long term.
The link you send me is a “summary for policy makers” a political version of the scientific one, and in your version a reference to the hiatus is on page 15.
” The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. ”
Another way to say this is the lack of warming since 1998 is due to natural causes. The statement in red, is their opinion not established fact. I did not cherry pick 1998. They did.
Also IPCC Lead Author Hans von Storch wrote:
“According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero,†Storch told der Spiegel. “This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
I also sent you this CBC newspaper report on the day the report came out as it is clearer and is also a pro global warming article in general. There were several reports of this nature but far too few.
Here is the link. Look at it while it’s still available. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-change-report-s-temperature-hiatus-fuels-skeptics-1.1868223
Also, googling “Global warming hiatus” will bring you lots of references to the IPCC report.
Also, wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
Up until the IPCC report was published it was impossible to find the world’s average temperature on the internet. It is still very difficult. In fact the report you sent me does not mention it even once! WHY? Ask any of your friends or colleagues what the world’s temperature is and no one will be able to tell you despite 20 years of news reports on the topic.
To clarify, James Hansen said the the world has warmed 3/10’s of a degree in 20 years not 30 like I first stated. That was my error.
Here is his brief interview in which he also acknowledges the lack of warming and his excuses for it.
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/05/18/i-should-correct-what-you-just-said-hansen-on-global-surface-temps/
That should be closer to the The RSS and UAH satellite databases that you mentioned.
Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) says the degree of warming is statistically insignificant, not I.
He is a staunch GW promoter. Also, from a BBC interview:
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
From Nasa’s website concerning Arctic ice.
“One positive from the 2013-14 winter is that multiyear ice is more extensive. From February 2013 to February 2014, multiyear ice increased from 30 percent to 43 percent (2.25 to 3.17 million square kilometers) in the Arctic basin. The total is still below the multiyear ice total in 2007, when the recent series of shrinking ice extents started. “
*Notice that when the melting from 2007 to 2012 a period of five years it is significant and when it reverses for now close to three years, it is not.
Why is one a trend, and the other a short term blip. What will they say two years from now?
The link you sent me from NASA attributes the Arctic melting to mankind but suggests the Antarctic freezing to natural causes. Could they not both be from natural causes?
1945 to 1976 saw a 31 year cooling trend. 1976 to 1998 saw a 22 year warming trend. Now we are in a 15 to 18 year stagnate trend. Soon the level of stagnation will surpass the level of warming. When the world stopped cooling, no one said we are in a cooling hiatus.
It seems that when it warms it is because of CO2. When it cools it is because of some other reason.
A red flag for me started many years ago when I noticed that the temperature was never mentioned in any press release. Scientists were rarely mentioned by name and if so they came from the Goddard institute. There were attempts to hide the lack of warming from the public since it was noticed in 2008. That is why the temperature was never mentioned in any news articles until the IPCC report. The personal attacks or the threatened tone of dialogue from GW proponents suggests an attempt to stifle opposing views. The lack of scrutiny by the media. Press releases published “as is†without fact checking. GW promotion is done almost exclusively by politicians and media speaking on behalf of unnamed scientists, while named scientists with opposing views are ignored.
As far as “lore†goes we are all great at spotting the other person’s propaganda but not so good at spotting the propaganda aimed at us.
So the global warming “lore†has been modified over the past two decades.
It started when scientists noticed that the 1990’s were a warmer than normal decade. Then it became a political theory as much as a scientific one.
At that time, all the emphasis was on 1990 onwards. That 1998, or 2004 or 2010 was the warmest year on record etc… What GW proponents chose not to tell you was that if so, it was by a fraction of degree C.
Global Warming 101. (1987 to 2008)
“The world is warming and we are to blame.â€
Global Warming 201 (2008 to 2013)
after researchers in 2008 noticed the world is no longer warming significantly and tried to hide it.
The term changes from Global Warming to Climate Change.
“The climate is changing†“weather is more severeâ€
Global warming 301 (2013 to present)
after the IPCC September 2013 report and after years of focusing on weather from 1990 onwards
“The world has warmed since 1850 until now and the hiatus is only a pause from a long term trend!â€
Again what they choose not to tell you is that any temperature readings before satellites is an educated guess with an error rate greater than the temperature variances.
No one was taking temperature readings in the poles or the Congo, or the Gobi desert in 1850. Proxy evidence, (tree rings) though helpful is not precisely accurate either.
Yes this is my “screed†as you put it, and I appreciate that you think I am entitled to it, but I can tell you that the notion by others that I am not entitled to it gives me pause to think that global warming is a propaganda campaign waged at you and me and not with our best interests at heart.
In order for Gw proponents to get any credibility with skeptical thinkers, they must put the current world temperature in every report. It must be promoted by accredited scientists not their political or media spokesmen. They must debate or dialogue with those with opposing views with respect. No sneers, slurs or insults. Doing so loses the argument immediately. Both sides must be heard and evaluated on their own merit. They must make it non-political so that those who believe or do not believe do so not from ideological worldviews. To do this means removing wealth redistribution schemes from the table to solve the problem and focus on research and development into alternative sources of energy instead. Only then will a consensus be reached because adherence will hurt no one and might actually benefit everyone. The fact that the IPCC is focused on regulation and wealth redistribution over R&D with them as the broker, makes many suspicious including me.
Regards
Phil
P.S. As to your second email. I am interested in knowing, It concerned me that the temperatures stated for the medieval warm period has been “revised†so that now they are considered cooler than present.
The problem with this is that wine making was big business in England during the medieval warm period. Grapes were being grown in England then. Something that can not be done today. Suggesting that it was warmer then than now. The revising of these temperatures smell more of politics than science.
In your email you stated The so-called Medieval warm period was a slight blip in the long-term cooling. The current rapid warming over the past century is likely the warmest the Earth has been during the Holocene.
My question to you is what caused the slight blip? Was it the same forces that are in play now? If the world warmed then on its own then, could it not be warming on it’s own now?
Should we not be asking these questions, or should we be be stifled and just take out our cheque books?