Dear Aus. Public ... Love, Science xxx

[bit_pattern]

UPDATE: Updated list of signatories

Climate change is real: An open letter from the scientific community
Published 10:52 AM, 14 Jun 2011
Updated 10:59 AM, 14 Jun 2011

The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes.

Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.

Like it or not, humanity is facing a problem that is unparalleled in its scale and complexity. The magnitude of the problem was given a chilling focus in the most recent report of the International Energy Agency, which their chief economist characterised as the “worst news on emissions.”

Limiting global warming to 2°C is now beginning to look like a nearly insurmountable challenge.

Like all great challenges, climate change has brought out the best and the worst in people.

A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businessmen are boldly designing a future that is based on low-impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity.

At the other extreme, understandable economic insecurity and fear of radical change have been exploited by ideologues and vested interests to whip up ill-informed, populist rage, and climate scientists have become the punching bag of shock jocks and tabloid scribes.

Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of “balance” by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called “sceptics” to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny.

Australians have been exposed to a phony public debate which is not remotely reflected in the scientific literature and community of experts.

Beginning today, The Conversation will bring much-needed and long-overdue accountability to the climate “sceptics.”

For the next two weeks, our series of daily analyses will show how they can side-step the scientific literature and how they subvert normal peer review. They invariably ignore clear refutations of their arguments and continue to promote demonstrably false critiques.

We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.
The individuals who deny the balance of scientific evidence on climate change will impose a heavy future burden on Australians if their unsupported opinions are given undue credence.

The signatories below jointly authored this article, and some may also contribute to the forthcoming series of analyses.

http://theconversation.edu.au/clima...pen-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808

Signatories
Winthrop Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Australian Professorial Fellow, UWA

Dr. Matthew Hipsey, Research Assistant Professor, School of Earth and Environment, Centre of Excellence for Ecohydrology, UWA

Dr Julie Trotter, Research Assistant Professor, School of Earth and Environment, UWA Oceans Institute, UWA

Winthrop Professor Malcolm McCulloch, F.R.S., Premier’s Research Fellow, UWA Oceans Institute, School of Earth and Environment, UWA

Professor Kevin Judd, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UWA

Dr Thomas Stemler, Assistant Professor, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UWA

Dr. Karl-Heinz Wyrwoll, Senior Lecturer, School of Earth and Environment, UWA

Dr. Andrew Glikson, Earth and paleoclimate scientist, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research School of Earth Science, Planetary Science Institute, ANU

Prof Michael Ashley, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, UNSW

Prof David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne

Prof John Abraham, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas

Prof Ian Enting, ARC Centre for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems, University of Melbourne

Prof John Wiseman, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne

Associate Professor Ben Newell, School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, UNSW

Prof Matthew England, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW

Dr Alex Sen Gupta Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW

Prof. Mike Archer AM, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, UNSW

Prof Steven Sherwood, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW

Dr. Katrin Meissner, ARC Future Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW

Dr Jason Evans, ARC Australian Research Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW

Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Global Change Institute, UQ

Dr Andy Hogg, Fellow, Research School of Earth Sciences, ANU

Prof John Quiggin, School of Economics, School of Political Science & Intnl Studies, UQ

Prof Chris Turney FRSA FGS FRGS, Climate Change Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW

Dr Gab Abramowitz, Lecturer, Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW

Prof Andy Pitman, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW

Prof Barry Brook, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide

Prof Mike Sandiford, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne

Dr Michael Box, Associate Professor, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, UNSW

Prof Corey Bradshaw, Director of Ecological Modelling, The Environment Institute, The University of Adelaide

Dr Paul Dargusch, School of Agriculture & Food Science, UQ

Prof Nigel Tapper, Professor Environmental Science, School of Geography and Environmental Science Monash University

Prof Jason Beringer, Associate Professor & Deputy Dean of Research, School of Geography & Environmental Science, Monash University

Prof Neville Nicholls, Professorial Fellow, School of Geography & Environmental Science, Monash University

Prof Dave Griggs, Director, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University

Prof Peter Sly, Medicine Faculty, School of Paediatrics & Child Health, UQ

Dr Pauline Grierson, Senior Lecturer, School of Plant Biology, Ecosystems Research Group, Director of West Australian Biogeochemistry Centre, UWA

Prof Jurg Keller, IWA Fellow, Advanced Water Management Centre, UQ

Prof Amanda Lynch, School of Geography & Environmental Science, Monash University

A/Prof Steve Siems, School of Mathematical Sciences, Monash University

Prof Justin Brookes, Director, Water Research Centre, The University of Adelaide

Prof Glenn Albrecht, Professor of Sustainability, Director: Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy (ISTP), Murdoch University

Winthrop Professor Steven Smith, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, UWA

Dr Kerrie Unsworth, School of Business, UWA

Dr Pieter Poot, Assistant Professor in Plant Conservation Biology, School of Plant Biology, UWA

Adam McHugh, Lecturer, School of Engineering and Energy, Murdoch University

Dr Louise Bruce, Research Associate, School of Earth and Environment, UWA

Dr Ailie Gallant, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne

Dr Will J Grant, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, ANU

Rick A. Baartman, Fellow of the American Physical Society

William GC Raper, Senior Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO (retired)

Dr Chris Riedy, Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney

Ben McNeil, Senior Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW

Paul Beckwith, Department of Geography, University of Ottawa

Tim Leslie, PhD candidate, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW

Dr Peter Manins, Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research (post-retirement Fellow)

Prof Philip Jennings, Professor of Energy Studies, Murdoch University

Dr John Tibby, Senior Lecturer, Geography, Environment and Population, University of Adelaide

Prof Ray Wills, Adjunct Professor, School of Earth and Environment, UWA

Jess Robertson, Research School of Earth Sciences, ANU

Dr Paul Tregoning, Senior Fellow, Research School of Earth Sciences, ANU

Dr Doone Wyborn, Adjunct Professor, Geothermal Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland

Dr. Jonathan Whale, Director, National Small Wind Turbine Centre (NSWTC), Murdoch University

Dr Tas van Ommen, Australian Antarctic Division, Cryosphere Program Leader, Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC

Dr Jim Salinger, Honorary Research Associate, School of Environment, University of Auckland

Dr P. Timon McPhearson, Assistant Professor of Urban Ecology, Tishman Environment and Design Center, The New School, New York

Prof Deo Prasad, Director Masters in Sustainable Development, UNSW

Prof Rob Harcourt, Facility Leader, Australian Animal Tagging, Monitoring System Integrated Marine Observing System and Professor of Marine Ecology, Macquarie University

Dr John Hunter, Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC, University of Tasmania

Dr Michael Brown, ARC Future Fellow & Senior Lecturer, School of Physics, Monash University

Dr Karen McNamara, Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development, University of the South Pacific

Dr Paul Marshall, Director – Climate Change, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

Dr Ivan Haigh, Post-doctoral Research Associate, UWA Oceans Institute and School of Environmental Systems Engineering

Dr Ian Allison, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC

Dr Jennifer Coopersmith, Honorary Research Associate Department of Civil Engineering and Physical Sciences, La Trobe University

Professor Emeritus Peter Kershaw, School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University

Professor Peter Gell, Director, Centre for Environmental Management, University of Ballarat

Prof David A Hood, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering, Queensland University of Technology

Professor Lesley Hughes, Head of Biological Sciences and Co-director of Climate Futures at Macquarie, Macquarie University.

Dr Melanie Bishop, Senior Lecturer, Department of Biological Sciences, Climate Futures at Macquarie, Macquarie University.

Dr Jane Williamson, Senior Lecturer, Department of Biological Sciences, Climate Futures at Macquarie, Macquarie University.

 

[NickyJ]

That's good shit. Kind of embarrassing that it has to come to this tho. Surprised to not see anyone from my uni on there but I guess it's early days.

 

[yanluo]

I am a critical thinker and I completely agree with the notion of climate change (except with Australia's current winter [it is really cold isn't it?]), but one thing that really irks me is people that say we are "killing the Earth".

As pretty as the rhetoric is, the "Earth" will not die. Humanity will die from our actions potentially in the long run - perhaps many of the plants and animals. But even if a mere barren and brown sphere is left, the same mysteries of the universe that put us here (millions of years of evolution I say) will eventually bring more life to this planet hopefully.

The point? Flowerchildren - relax, mother Earth will live on. We are fucked though.

 

[vanth]

Humankind dying out would probably be the best possible thing for the rest of Earth. I have watched an interesting video something along those lines, I'll post the link if I remember it.

 

[bit_pattern]

I am a critical thinker and I completely agree with the notion of climate change (except with Australia's current winter [it is really cold isn't it?]), but one thing that really irks me is people that say we are "killing the Earth".

As pretty as the rhetoric is, the "Earth" will not die. Humanity will die from our actions potentially in the long run - perhaps many of the plants and animals. But even if a mere barren and brown sphere is left, the same mysteries of the universe that put us here (millions of years of evolution I say) will eventually bring more life to this planet hopefully.

The point? Flowerchildren - relax, mother Earth will live on. We are fucked though.

Haha. Touche.

 

[wazza]

The thing about climate change, we just don't have the ACTUAL DATA needed to compare current weather trends and the like to before recorded data of only like from 1850 and using reconstructed temperatures from before hand due to not having actual recorded temperatures (from a thermometer)

And using the historical reconstructed temperatures of the past 1000 years (which is fuck all for Earth as a whole), at

It seems the lowest temperature anomaly (negative) is like near -1.0c and the highest temperature anomaly (positive) is +0.4c. So the negative still is almost double (if not more than double, my head is too clogged up from a damn headcold I've got) than the positive (warm) temperature anomaly.

So we still don't have CONCLUSIVE evidence (probably never can until the next 50-200 years of recorded temperatures) of how the Earth is heating up (to unsustainable temperatures for humans) Of course it's unwise to use this as evidence to do what the hell they want, such as huge energy use + waste for production of whatever item(s) and the like.

This is from what I had researched from about a years study at uni for my "science subject" we did on climate change in the early 90s, of course that was 20 years ago, so we've had further temperatures of a positive but for me personally, it's not conclusive for naysayers predictions of us dying yada yada, not just yet anyway

*edit*

That said, this graph is a few years old, anyone have data (in a graphical view?) of something more recent like say this or last year's recorded temps?

 

[Busty St Clare]

I don't think that we need proof to start changing our ways. Even if greenhouse gases are not causing global warming it is still pollution. The same people who argue against change are usually the same people who will toss cigarette butts from their car window, bury a chip packet under the sand at the beach or hose down their concrete drive ways without a second thought.

You only have to blow your nose after a day walking around London or try view the smoggy horizon in Mexico City or Beijing to realise that it is negligent to continue the current status norm. I honestly doubt humans will be wiped out, our current way of life may thin numbers a bit but we are nothing but resourceful. If we could possibly live on the moon I'm sure a few hardy members will adapt to our new planet. It will just be a shame if my great grandchildren won't be able to fly across the globe and experience all the wonders I have been able to in my lifetime.

 

[bit_pattern]

So we still don't have CONCLUSIVE evidence (probably never can until the next 50-200 years of recorded temperatures) of how the Earth is heating up (to unsustainable temperatures for humans)

We can see how the planet is accumulating heat:

And we don't necessarily need historical record to know how CO2 will warm the planet, although the past is instructive in predicting just how such changes might play out.

The following from the same series in the OP is really quite mind boggling. The licence on the article is open, it could be posted here without any fear of copyright violation, but I know how rigid the mods are here, so instead I strongly urge people to read the whole article. It's a real eye opener:

http://theconversation.edu.au/our-e...real-how-were-geo-engineering-the-planet-1544

The rate heat is released from the earth – a measure of its natural “metabolic rate” – is well understood. It’s about 44 trillion watts, and reflects the average rate of energy transferred in moving all the continents, making all the mountains, the earthquakes and the volcanoes on our planet in a process we call plate tectonics.

By way of contrast, the International Energy Agency estimates our human “energy system” operates at a rate of some 16 trillion watts.

So we are already operating at one-third the rate of plate tectonics, and with our energy use doubling every 34 years we are on course to surpass plate tectonics by about 2060.

Climate scientists talk about the climate sensitivity in terms of a “radiative forcing” – an obscure term that accounts for the rate of heat energy gain or loss due to a change in a climate parameter.

The radiative forcing of a doubling of CO₂ is about 1300 trillion watts – or 28 times the energy released by plate tectonics.

And we are well on the way to doubling CO₂. In the past hundred years we have added almost 40%, and warming that can only plausibly be attributed to a greenhouse effect is not only heating the atmosphere, but is also pumping heat into the oceans and the crust at a phenomenal rate.

When my students measure the temperature in boreholes across Australia they invariably see that almost as much heat is now going into the upper 30-50 metres of the Earth’s crust as is trying to get out – a result entirely consistent with the surface temperature rises measured by climate scientists.

Recent measurements suggest the oceans have been heating at 300 trillion watts over the last few decades.

The scale of our energy use is truly mind-boggling. In fact, the sheer size of these numbers makes it difficult for most people to grasp and comprehend their significance; few of us have any useful reference frame for comparison

 

[bit_pattern]

I don't think that we need proof to start changing our ways. Even if greenhouse gases are not causing global warming it is still pollution. The same people who argue against change are usually the same people who will toss cigarette butts from their car window, bury a chip packet under the sand at the beach or hose down their concrete drive ways without a second thought.

You only have to blow your nose after a day walking around London or try view the smoggy horizon in Mexico City or Beijing to realise that it is negligent to continue the current status norm. I honestly doubt humans will be wiped out, our current way of life may thin numbers a bit but we are nothing but resourceful. If we could possibly live on the moon I'm sure a few hardy members will adapt to our new planet. It will just be a shame if my great grandchildren won't be able to fly across the globe and experience all the wonders I have been able to in my lifetime.

CO2 is an invisible gas, you can't "see" it. In fact, other than it's tendency to trap heat, CO2 couldn't possibly be classed as a pollutant.

 

[Busty St Clare]

Fair call but name one industry that emits CO2 as it's only by product. Where there is smoke there is usually a shit load of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

 

[bit_pattern]

Fair call but name one industry that emits CO2 as it's only by product. Where there is smoke there is usually a shit load of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

True. Coal plants emit more radioactive particles than a nuclear power plant.

 

[wazza]

We can see how the planet is accumulating heat:

*Nod*, and at the time when I did my uni studies into this (as mentioned it was 20 years ago, things may have changed either small or big), the 'rule of thumb' was, earth heats up, polar caps melt somewhat, introduces more rain which brings more clouds which cools the earth which brings the early back to a standard temperature range. This of course being over the course of years, decades or even centuries. But that's just what the general consensus was _back then_.

The big amount of rains (around the globe?) could either be part of the above scenario or 'a fluke' time wise or whatever reason(s) for it. But I still say we shouldn't let any of the possible evidence of Earth 'righting itself' mean we go and and be wasteful energy + waste wise. It's just at least for me, I'm not too bothered by the naysayers predictions of "global catasophies" from the heating of the Earth, not just yet away. And I still do "my bit", I'm VERY environmentally concious, we turn off everything (at powerpoint) when not in use, we're both home 'all day', due to us raising our 2 children under the age of 2 along with my chronic pain + injury I have, and our electricity + water usage is about 1/3 to 1/2 of the average family household of 2.5 kids according to the stats given out.

 

[NickyJ]

Clouds don't cool the Earth. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

 

[wazza]

Clouds can actually (do both, cool or warm)

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/SCOOL/rolecld.html


Plus as I stated, this is was the consensus was for "rule of thumb" back in 1990-2 when I was at uni

 

[Cartesia]

I hate all this "consensus" bullshit,

science is not a democratic process..if the majority of people think the world is flat, that doesn't make it so.

If ONE person raises a credible issue, it has to be dealt with... regardless of whether they are qualified in a certain area or not.. an issue with the hypothesis must be explained. Many of these issues, rather than being dealt with logically, are said to be non-issues, because there is *consensus* or because someone is not a climatologist.

Science is not a case of "You must prove that this is NOT the case", it is a case of you must prove this IS the case.

By the way, I am not a 'denier' - I happen to think we probably ARE affecting the environment - but this movement has been wildly politicized and science is not being done the way it should be...

What I want to see is statistical analysis of the following:

There are certain temperature 'cycles' that have repeated over time.. Take some individual cycles from previous data and compare each to it's corresponding solar activity data.
Determine the amount of effect the sun has on the temperature in that particular cycle.

We should find that all these previous cycles, the sun has an almost identical effect on temperature (unless there was an outstanding event during that cycle - volcanism, asteroid impact, etc which we can usually identify.)

Now take the current cycle and current solar data. Show that the temperature change is larger than that which would be affected by the sun (as found from previous cycles)

All you need to do is show that there is a statistically significant discrepancy between the sun's activity in this cycle and the earth's temperature that does not relate to any of the known climate-affecting natural disasters that have taken place in that time period.

This fairly simple task is all that is required to end the 'sun is the controller of the weather' argument against man-made global warming.

About the political side of this farce..
If companies are complaining about how much carbon tax they're gonna have to pay... Then they're obviously not planning on significantly reducing the amount of CO2 they produce. so the carbon tax will be a revenue raiser, not a CO2 preventive.

 

[bit_pattern]

I hate all this "consensus" bullshit,

science is not a democratic process..if the majority of people think the world is flat, that doesn't make it so.

If ONE person raises a credible issue, it has to be dealt with... regardless of whether they are qualified in a certain area or not.. an issue with the hypothesis must be explained. Many of these issues, rather than being dealt with logically, are said to be non-issues, because there is *consensus* or because someone is not a climatologist.

Science is not a case of "You must prove that this is NOT the case", it is a case of you must prove this IS the case.

By the way, I am not a 'denier' - I happen to think we probably ARE affecting the environment - but this movement has been wildly politicized and science is not being done the way it should be...

No, you just raise a lot of denier talking points. Whatever. The main point here is that the consensus was clearly supported by evidence supporting the position. It's all there in the IPCC AR4.

And, yes, if a credible issue IS raised then it IS 'dealt with'. The problem here is all of the non-credible ideas that exist exclusively in the phoney media debate but NOT in the peer review literature are being touted as being "credible" when they are most definitely not.

What I want to see is statistical analysis of the following:

There are certain temperature 'cycles' that have repeated over time.. Take some individual cycles from previous data and compare each to it's corresponding solar activity data.
Determine the amount of effect the sun has on the temperature in that particular cycle.

We should find that all these previous cycles, the sun has an almost identical effect on temperature (unless there was an outstanding event during that cycle - volcanism, asteroid impact, etc which we can usually identify.)

Now take the current cycle and current solar data. Show that the temperature change is larger than that which would be affected by the sun (as found from previous cycles)

All you need to do is show that there is a statistically significant discrepancy between the sun's activity in this cycle and the earth's temperature that does not relate to any of the known climate-affecting natural disasters that have taken place in that time period.

This fairly simple task is all that is required to end the 'sun is the controller of the weather' argument against man-made global warming.

About the political side of this farce..
If companies are complaining about how much carbon tax they're gonna have to pay... Then they're obviously not planning on significantly reducing the amount of CO2 they produce. so the carbon tax will be a revenue raiser, not a CO2 preventive.

You can find an answer to each and everyone of your tired and worn denier talking points here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/, all rigorously challenged using layman's language with sources to the original peer review literature. Happy reading!

 

[bit_pattern]

Clouds can actually (do both, cool or warm)

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/SCOOL/rolecld.html


Plus as I stated, this is was the consensus was for "rule of thumb" back in 1990-2 when I was at uni

It's still one of the larger uncertainties, however the evidence suggests now that clouds are a strong positive feedback, although that's far from being the final word on the matter, I'm sure.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/an-even-cloudier-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html

 

[NickyJ]

No, you just raise a lot of denier talking points. Whatever. The main point here is that the consensus was clearly supported by evidence supporting the position. It's all there in the IPCC AR4.

And, yes, if a credible issue IS raised then it IS 'dealt with'. The problem here is all of the non-credible ideas that exist exclusively in the phoney media debate but NOT in the peer review literature are being touted as being "credible" when they are most definitely not.



You can find an answer to each and everyone of your tired and worn denier talking points here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/, all rigorously challenged using layman's language with sources to the original peer review literature. Happy reading!

Nice post! :D

 

[Cartesia]

Show me some more solar/temp data... and explain why an 11 year average was the only data used.

Like I said, I am NOT a denier. Try to talk to me without using a 'label'. Use facts. Satistically significant ones. Ones which use ALL of the data relevant/available. Dont show me one period of time /scale of time where warming is occurring- show me multiple, in different orders of magnitude, etc, etc

 

[fivelinefury]

^ Exactly. Just because my views on climate change aren't 100% the same as others doesn't mean I should be labeled as a "denier", or a "skeptic". Thats just an extreme left-wing view which is an insult to democracy.

I believe the climate is changing for sure, but by the same token, by how much over how long and how much caused by human activity? etc. The fact is that the climate is changing every day and it will continue to change every other day regardless. Floods, droughts, heat, rain, from one extreme to the other has been and will also continue to be the case in Australia. To be called a skeptic is an extreme view, just like if someone is to not follow others in a religion. This doesn't make them a skeptic. They just don't believe in it as strongly.