Who'd have guessed? Increasing renewables really does decrease carbon emissions

Renewable energy, especially solar and wind are growing and supplying an ever greater percentage of the electricity in many countries. Common sense would tell you that as solar and wind increase and coal and gas generation goes down the amount of carbon pollution and other toxic gasses emitted from fossil fuel plants will decrease. Like anything in the climate and clean energy though, there are "skeptics" who don't agree with this, but data are better than opinions and the NREL lab at the Department on Energy in the US have crunched the numbers to find out.

The area of contention is that the intermittent nature of (some) renewables means fossil fuel plants need to fire up and then down more often (cycling). When you fire up a plant it tends to emit more, at that moment, than if it was running steadily. Kind of how like starting a car uses a burst of fuel. So what is the overall impact of this?

NREL found that:

"The negative impact of cycling on overall plant emissions is relatively small. The increase in plant emissions from cycling to accommodate variable renewables are more than offset by the overall reduction in CO₂, NO_x, and SO₂."

I.E:

"Emission Impacts of Cycling Are Relatively Small Compared to Emission Reductions Due to Renewables"

 NREL found that moving to 1/3 renewables from solar and wind would cause carbon emissions to drop by 1/3. Toxic gasses would also decrease. This is because although there might be a small increase in some emissions associated with cycling a plant on and off these are tiny compared to the decrease in emissions due to less fossil fuels being burnt, because 1/3 of the power is now coming from renewables. The claims of some "skeptics" is like claiming you should leave your car idling for an hour instead of turning it off and then on again an hour later because turning you car on uses more fuel that idling would at that second.

Here's the impact for 1/3 renewables:

So there you have it, increasing renewables decreases carbon emissions (as well as other toxic gasses that coal plants especially produce a lot of). Common sense right?

Yes Virginia, wind power really does decrease carbon emissions

In most technical or scientific fields, the response to self-proclaimed experts who are claiming everyone else has got it wrong should be cautious skepticism. Doubly so when they have little or no actual expertise in the field. Double again when this technical area is anything to do with climate change, which seems to attract self-styled "expert skeptics" like moths to a flame. Unless of course, you are a certain newspaper, then these sorts of claims need to be taken very seriously indeed and given lots of space, even if, for example they contain obviously nonsense, like claiming a huge drop in global temperatures that never actually happened.

Luckily we have journalists at The Climate Spectator and Renew Economy prepared to do a bit of fact checking. And from the latest stoush about wind power two things seem fairly clear.

1. Wind power does decrease the overall carbon footprint of electricity.

2. The growth of renewables (of which wind is a big part) and gas electricity generation, have coincided with a fall in coal power production as the squeeze is put on the most marginal coal plants. According to one energy analyst the combined effect of this and falling demand has been to reduce carbon emission from electricity generation to their lowest levels since 2003.

Climate change doubters are endangering our common future

"Most of us do accept the science that human action is changing our climate directly and that only by cutting emissions dramatically can we avert real disaster. Even those who aren't sure take the view that simple prudence dictates action. After all, none of us thinks our homes will be burnt down, but we do take out fire insurance. In fact the probabilities on climate change are far, far higher and the consequences of inaction almost unthinkable".

No that's not Bob Brown, it's John Gummer a British Conservative Party politican who was a minister in the Thatcher and Major governments and is now a member of the House of Lords. Although it may seem surprising here in OZ, he, like many conservatives in Europe and the UK is also a strong supporter of action on climate change. His piece "Climate change doubters are endangering our common future" was published in The Australian a week or two ago and does a good job of helping to explain why action on climate change is necessary and why meaningful action has bipartisan support in the UK and Europe.

"The science is now even more compelling but even if it weren't, most of what we have to do to fight climate change we will have to do anyway. With the world population reaching 9 billion by 2050 and more and more of its people living above subsistence level, we just have to learn to conserve our resources and do more with less. There are now more middle-class people in India than there are in Europe. In China, internal demand for goods and services is escalating at an enormous rate. I returned from a visit to Beijing at the end of last month. The next five-year plan will put sustainability and the battle against climate change at the heart of the nation's economic policy."

"So it is not only the Europeans - Right and Left - who have taken up the challenge. From California to Korea, governments and civil society are finding their own ways to work towards a world that is not threatened by pollution. Even if they were all wrong and we acted, the result would be that we would have a cleaner planet, more able to cope with feeding, housing, and clothing those 9 billion people. If, however, we follow the sceptics and they turn out to be wrong, then we would leave our children a legacy of destruction. The risk is all one way, which explains why in Britain, scepticism is confined to the extremes."

The bolding is my emphasis because I think it sums things up pretty neatly.

Gummer finishes with a call for us here in Australia to play our part in combating climate change:

"In the end, we all have to face the facts. The scientific consensus is now so significant that, even if we ourselves remain doubters, it would be wrong to endanger our children by hoping for the best. If we act sensibly there is real chance of success. The rest of the world is doing it, and I hope that Australia will join us in her own way and play her part in protecting our common future."

As the pollies say: Hear hear!

Climate change cage match: Abbott debates Abbott

Some, (humour?) from Crikey: Climate change cage match: Abbott debates Abbott.

With all the focus on Julia Gillard's change of heart on how to price carbon it's worth seeing what Tony Abbott believes. Some excerpts:

As the Gillard government’s plan for a carbon prices sends Coalition stocks soaring, attention is increasingly focusing on what opposition leader Tony Abbott believes in about climate change and how to deal with it. Today in Crikey, Tony Abbott debates one of his most formidable opponents on the issue — Tony Abbott....

On climate change:

Tony Abbott:I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have significantly increased since the spread of industrialisation, but it seems that noticeable warming has only taken place between the 1970s and 1990s.

Tony Abbott: We have a clear policy on climate change. Climate change is real.

On how to reduce emissions:

Tony Abbott: I think that the science is far from settled but on the insurance principle you are prepared to take reasonable precautions against significant potential risks, and that’s I think why it makes sense to have an ETS (emissions trading scheme).

Tony Abbott: What we need is environmental direct action. We need action which is actually going to make a difference. What we don’t need is a whopping great new tax masquerading as a green measure.

Tony Abbott: ....Still, a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change.

I would also note this quote:

''If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax? Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more?''

Savvy?

Well i doubt it. Abbott's pronouncements on climate change leave it very difficult to know what he actually believes. Except perhaps that he has taken the Groucho Marx approach to any climate change policy advocated by Labour. This does seem rather unfortunate because in the UK for example the conservative PM Margaret Thatcher was one of the strongest early voices for action on climate change. A position the British Conservative party still embraces today.

Senate enquiry on wind farms

There’s a senate enquiry on The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms, Steve Fielding’s going away present to the nation. Responses due by 10 February, so hurry if you can contribute.

This is a field where the denialists go crazy so a few sensible inputs would be useful for balance. Here are the terms of reference:

The social and economic impacts of rural wind farms, and in particular:

1. Any adverse health effects for people living in close proximity to wind farms;
2. Concerns over the excessive noise and vibrations emitted by wind farms, which are in close proximity to people’s homes;
3. The impact of rural wind farms on property values, employment opportunities and farm income;
4. The interface between Commonwealth, state and local planning laws as they pertain to wind farms; and
5. Any other relevant matters.

The questions of course are loaded because they do not consider the alternative, large open-cut coal mines and pollution from fossil fuel power stations.

Here are a few more links for those thinking of responding:

• Submissions already received.
• Some ideas for submissions.

And finally, here is what I submitted:

Whatever happened to global warming, eh?

Funny stuff from British comedy duo Armstrong and Miller. Enjoy.

(H/t: Hot-topic)

Naomi Oreskes - Public Lecture: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming

The Global Change Institute at UQ is hosting Naomi Oreskes for their final Insights Seminar of the year. Here are the details from the GCI website:

“Merchants of Doubt”

How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming

‘Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have demonstrated what many of us had long suspected: that the ‘debate’ over the climate crisis - and many other environmental issues - was manufactured by the same people who brought you ‘safe’ cigarettes.' Former US Vice President Al Gore

In this public lecture, Naomi Oreskes will "roll back the rug" on the dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how ideology and corporate interests, aided by a too-compliant media, have skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.
She will tell the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades.
Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly - some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is ‘not settled’ denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. ‘Doubt is our product,’ wrote one tobacco executive. These ‘experts’ supplied it.

When: Tuesday 16 November 2010, 5.30pm
Where: Abel Smith Theatre (Bldg 23), The University of Queensland, St Lucia (map)
RSVP here

--------------
Naomi Oreskes is a Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego.

Her research focuses on the historical development of scientific knowledge, methods, and practices in the earth and environmental sciences, and on understanding scientific consensus and dissent.
In 2004 Oreskes wrote an essay on science and society Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Science, December 2004). In the essay she reported an analysis of “928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and published in the ISI database with the keywords ‘global climate change’” After the analysis, she concluded that 75 percent of the examined abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

How many scientists does it take to change a skeptic?

Tongue in check perhaps, but on Tuesday night (7th of Sept) SBS Insight is a Q&A between renowned climate change scientist Prof Stephen Schneider and an audience full of climate skeptics.
Recorded before his untimely death in July, the program promises to be quite interesting. Stephen Schneider had a life long passion for engaging with the public and it will be interesting to see not only if he can educate and sway opinions but for those interested in communicating complex science to a skeptical public what does and does not work.

I'm also curious about the level of scientific knowledge of the skeptics and whether their skepticism appears based more on honestly held opinions and or ideology. I guess we'll see.

SBS Insight 7.30pm
Tues 7th of Sept

Will global warming be good for us?

One argument made by some climate contrarians is that we shouldn't worry too much about global warming because a warmer world with high C02 will be good for us. John Cook over at Skeptical Science shows that this view is not supported by the evidence and realistically it's hard to put a positive spin on melting glaciers, rising sea levels, ocean acidification and species extinction.

But what about the predictions that rising temperatures will be good for countries like Russia and increase their agricultural output? Unfortunately global warming doesn't just mean more winter bbq's it also means more extreme heat with more frequent and more severe heat waves and in some places more drought. This isn't a future prediction, it's already being observed, as the IPCC found:

"Since 1950, the number of heat waves has increased........The extent of regions affected by droughts has also increased as precipitation over land has marginally decreased while evaporation has increased due to warmer conditions".

So what about Russia? Large parts of western Russia are currently in the grips of an unprecedented two month long heat wave that has shattered temperature records. The death rate in Moscow has soared. The record heat combined with drought has lead to thousands of wildfires breaking out with loss of life, villages and air thick with smog. Heat and drought has also lead to the loss of millions of acres of wheat (leading a ban on wheat exports for the rest of the year and spike in world prices).

So yes, while in some years Russia may benefit from longer growing seasons it will also have more years like 2010 (currently the hottest year on record worldwide) with extreme heat and heatwaves, which if anything like this year, won't be good at all. And of course it's worth mentioning that global warming has only really just begun, currently temperatures are up ~0.65 dC and our most optimistic proposals are generally to attempt to hold warming below 2 dC, better get to work.

Climate scientists vindicated (again)

"On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

The fifth (and final) review into "Climategate", the Muir Russell Climate Change Email Review has just been released. This "forensic" report looked into allegations made against climate scientists from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Like the four before it, the Muir Russell report found almost every allegation to be completely baseless, although like the preceding reports it faulted the scientists and the university for an unhelpful attitude towards freedom of information requests.

Crucially, these reports have found nothing that challenges or calls into question our understanding of climate change. More findings from the report are quoted below, the report can be found here, see reaction from the media and blogosphere.

"We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it.

On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this"

For those interested in whether CRU results could be independently replicated, well the inquiry did this themselves, with relative ease it seems:

"Finding: The computer code required to read and analyse the instrumental temperature data is straightforward to write based upon the published literature... Such code could be written by any research unit which is competent to reproduce or test the CRUTEM analysis. For the trial analysis of the Review Team, the code was written in less than two days and produced results similar too other independent analyses. No information was required from CRU to do this."

So how do actual climate scientists feel about this whole pseudoscandal? Judging by their comments many are extremely unhappy with how the media reported this story without questioning the veracity of many of the skeptics wild claims.

Prof Raymond Bradley:

"If there is a scandal to be reported at all, it is this: the media stoked a controversy without properly investigating the issues, choosing to inflate trivialities to the level of an international scandal, without regard for the facts or individuals affected. This was a shameful chapter in the history of news reporting, and a lesson for those who are concerned about fair and honest communication with the public."

Prof Myles Allen:

"What everyone has lost sight of is the spectacular failure of mainstream journalism to keep the whole affair in perspective. Again and again, stories are sexed up with arch hints that these "revelations" might somehow impact on the evidence for human impact on climate. Yet the only error in the actual data used for climate change detection to have emerged from this whole affair amounted to a few hundredths of a degree in the estimated global temperature of a couple of years in the late 1870s."

One can only hope that now the skeptics' claims have been shown to be without basis, journos in the future will be more "skeptical of the skeptics".

Summary of Climate Science

There's a great new article at RealClimate, summarising the science at a level accessible for those with a basic science knowledge (a little above those who can’t read an equation). It’s a good one to refer people to who have some science education and are not sure of the basics.

Climate reality week - John Cook from Skeptical Science.com to speak at UQ

UQ Climate for Change is running several cool events for Climate Reality week. A nationwide event organised by the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC), this week aims to remind everyone that we cannot escape the realities of climate change by ignoring the problem, we need to take action.

On Friday May 7th, John Cook, author of the website Skeptical Science will be giving a lunch time talk at the University of Queensland about "The reality of climate change" and true scientific skepticism (map).

After John's talk there will be a panel discussion also featuring:

Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg - Director, Global Change Institute, UQ and expert on coral reefs and climate change
Jessie Wells - Oxfam Australia
Megan Evans - UQ Climate for Change

Click on the poster below for all the details


As mentioned by Philip in the comments, there is a free Skeptical Science iPhone App. All the science straight to your phone (very handy for dealing with your climate skeptic cousin when you see them at your next family get together).

Debunking Monckton (with videos)

Recently, Lord Christopher Monckton was in Australia. Arguably the most prominent climate change "skeptic" in the world, Monckton's visit drew enormous press (over 10x that of Prof James Hansen, arguably the most prominent climate scientist in the world, on his recent visit).
While in Oz, Monckton had a number of things to say, but is he truthful or credible? In the entertaining videos below Peter Sinclair examines some of Monckton's claims.

Have a look.

After watching these videos, you may (like me) wonder how someone who goes around claiming that global warming is a conspiracy to impose a communist world government, and that he has has invented a drug which is being showing promise against AIDS and a host of other diseases is taken seriously and gets so much press?
Although it is "somewhat" understandable that many journalists would not have the scientific expertise to examine some of his other claims, do they never stop to ask "Is this guy credible?" Or is it simply that no credibility is required to be a prominent climate skeptic?

"Climategate" fizzles out: UK Parliamentary inquiry exonerates British scientist but calls for greater transparency in climate science

The first of several inquiries into the hacked email brouhaha, that from the UK House of Commons, has reported its findings (you can download their report here).
The findings of the inquiry do much to exonerate Prof Phil Jones and the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia whose emails were stolen and who have been subsequently targeted with what can only be described as an extremely vicious smear campaign.

"The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—"trick" and "hiding the decline"—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity"."


Although there are other inquiries still ongoing it would be a surprise if they find anything significantly different from this one. The findings here can be summarized as: science is solid, but more data sharing please. Ie: that CRU should follow the example of NASA and make all their data available (although most of it already is).
No doubt some of the more irrational "skeptics" will claim that this report is a conspiracy to hide the conspiracy that AWG is a plot to enforce a one world government/ higher taxes etc, however actual evidence for this is looking thinner than an arctic ice cap at the moment.

See CNN's report here
Joe Romm has a good summary and commentary on the report here
Richard Black of the BBC has some thoughtful points on the evolution of data sharing and availability in science here

The assault on science and reason

"As the cacophony of voices attacking climate science grows, I have to wonder: where are the journalists? Have they forgotten their job description? In any other field, if such an obvious, misinformed lobby arose, would they rate any attention?

Well, maybe.

During organized tobacco's war on science, many newspapers reported propaganda created by paid tobacco lobbyists as a legitimate alternative to mainstream science. Other industries took up the same strategy: producers of CFCs who paid ozone hole deniers, and asbestos vendors who refused to acknowledge guilt in killing their own workers in the most horrific way in the cause of making a quick buck. In South Africa, according to a Harvard study, over 300,000 people died unnecessarily because the Mbeki government chose to believe pseudo-science when reality did not suit the president's politics."


So starts an excellent post by "vocal local" Phil Machanick on how the climate change denial industry is recycling the same strategies used in previous science denial campaigns and the astounding habit of the media to be taken in every time.

Also of grave concern is the seeming elevation of unsubstantiated opinion to the same level as scientific evidence as part on an all out attack on any piece of science that doesn't fit ones particular ideology. As a scholar of science myself, I would humbly suggest that when one's political ideology comes into conflict with the fundamental physical and chemical processes that govern the universe, its probably time to reconsider your opinions.

Or as Phil says more elegantly than I can:

"Science is not a matter of opinion: a theory stands or falls by how well it fits the evidence, including how well its predictions stand up to measurement. By attempting to turn climate science, and indeed any science that offends a particular special interest, into a matter for debate where the evidence counts for less than personal preference, we risk reverting from a society of reason to a society of superstition."

This assault on reason is prominent in Australia as well, in response to the recent climate change report from CSIRO and the BOM (two of Australia leading and most respected scientific organizations) Liberal Senator Julian McGauran attacked CSIRO scientists as politically biased. It is of course difficult to accuse thermometers, rain gauges and satellites as having a political bias, hence the rise in attacks on the scientists themselves when their evidence unequivocally points to a warming world.

In our technologically advanced society, science and scientists provide us with explanations for much our forebears could not answer, what causes infectious disease?, is vaccination safe?, why is the average temperature of the earth warmer than that of the moon? Before he opens his mouth next time scientists report information he doesn't like, I hope Senator McGauran will consider the implications for a society who, due to repeated smear campaigns, no longer trust scientists and scientific knowledge and whether such a society is on a path to long term prosperity?

Meanwhile, NASA are reporting that it is almost certain a new 12 month global temperature record will be set this year (see a summary here or download their draft paper here), darn physics.

Clive Hamilton - Requiem for a Species. Public seminar at UQ 24th of March

Prof Clive Hamilton - author, public intellectual, AM and (recently) federal Greens bi-election candidate - will be giving the inaugural seminar at the University of Queenslands' new Global Change Institute on Wed 24th of March to talk about his new book Requiem for a Species.

The Global Change Institute (GCI) is a new institute at the University of Queensland, set up to promote and facilitate teaching and research in the area of sustainability. This sounds like a really interesting although not particularly uplifting seminar.

Wednesday, 24 March 2010
5:30pm
Abel Smith Lecture Theatre

Here are the details

"In the inaugural seminar of the Global Change Institute “Insights Seminar Series” Clive Hamilton talks about his new book which examines why the human species finds facing up to climate change “just too hard”.

There have been any number of urgent scientific reports in recent years emphasising just how dire the future looks and how little time we have left to act.

Around the world only a few have truly faced up to the facts about global warming; others prefer to believe denialist claims in an effort to continue business as usual and maintain current lifestyles.

In the preface to Requiem for a Species Clive Hamilton describes the book as follows:

“It is a book about the frailties of the human species: our strange obsessions, our hubris, and our penchant for avoiding the facts. A story of a battle within us, between the forces that should have caused us to protect the earth, like our capacity to reason and our connection to nature, and our greed, materialism and alienation from nature, which, in the end, have won out.”

This is a free event, open to the public.
Book sales, signing and light refreshments will follow the lecture.

Please RSVP - www.gci.uq.edu.au/lecture"


Clive Hamilton AM is author and co-author of the bestselling Affluenza, Growth Fetish, Scorcher, Silencing Dissent and Freedom Paradox.

Defend climate scientists

For those who are fed up with incessant and increasingly personal attacks on climate scientists, I've set up a petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/clim4tr/ – please sign, and spread the word. There is no excuse even for those who do believe there is a valid case against the mainstream science to behave the way these people are behaving: theft of emails, accusations of fraud: where will it end?

I posted answers to some questions someone directed at me via The Australian’s letters blog to my own blog. I do this from time to time because posting response at their blog is unreliable.

Visualisation of the "debate" on climate change

I just came across this (what I think is) impressive visualisation of some of the claims and counter-claims made by climate skeptics and scientists. The author (not an expert on climate science) approached this project from the perspective of someone just beginning to learn about climate chnage. He makes an important point at the bottom of the post: that even on (for example) realclimate.org, specific rebuttals to skeptics' claims can be buried in jargon, at the end of long chains of comments. Because of this issue, I think projects like this one are really important.

(I'm sure there are many other such things out there - please link to them in the comments!)

UPDATE:

As Mike mentions in the comments, he posted a comprehensive list of resources earlier.

Hackergate/Swifthack/Climategate and the war on science

Usually this blog doesn't focus much on the science behind climate change or the huffing and puffing of the climate denial industry, however the latest smear campaign against climate scientists has been widely (and often badly) reported in the media so I think a comment is warranted.

Recently a person or persons unknown hacked into the files of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK and stole over a decades worth of emails between the unit and other climate scientists around the world. These private files were then released on the internet. Unsurprising, after mining through thousands of emails, the hackers and the so called climate "skeptics" managed to find a few phrases in a few emails which they could take out of context. This is unsurprising given the candid nature of email between colleagues and the huge volume of emails stolen. The usual charges of "fraud", "conspiracy" "falsifying data" etc then emanated out from the climate denial machine.

What made this round of accusations different from the week before was the extreme lengths it is clear some people are willing to go to smear climate scientists and drag science itself through the mud. The timing of this action is unlikely to be coincidental and instead part of an effort to disrupt the current global talks on preventing dangerous climate change. A number of media outlets have picked up on this story and unfortunately have failed to dig a little deeper to see whether the "skeptics" accusations hold water when the emails are viewed in context, or with a basic understanding of what the scientists were actually talking about.

Below I have posted two very good youtube videos which do dig deeper to explain these emails in an accessable and entertaining way.
Recommend watching.

Climate Change Science: Resources part 2

In part 1 of this series I listed some websites that provide useful information on climate change. In this post (part two) I will provide links to specific figures and graphs on areas of climate science.

Please note that many important climate science figures come from the IPCC reports and scientific papers which are often not available to view online (although the IPCC reports are free to download) so some figures necessarily come from websites which have copies.

One website that collates scientific images in one place is: Global Warming Art. Other links are provides in the drop-down boxes below.

+/- Temperature and temperature trends - click to expand

Graph of the surface temperature record (land and ocean) from NASA GISS
-Technical note: Green bars are uncertainty estimates, base period ie: temperature anomaly of 0 is 1950-1980

Temperature trend calculator (Hot-topic website)
- situated within an article (so scroll down to find) this interactive gadget displays the temperature trend of the instrumental record.

Recent temperature trends (RealClimate website)
- heard skeptics claiming warming has stopped, what does the science actually show? Graphic show upwards temperature trend over the last ten years.

Statisticians reject global cooling - another rebuttal to skeptic disinformation

NCDC - State of the Climate
-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) gives all the climate information you could want to poke a stick at (surface temp, atmospheric temp, rainfall, ice extent etc etc).

+/- Carbon dioxide levels, comparison with temperatures and humans vs volcanoes

Carbon dioxide levels over the past 400 000 years (NASA)
-shows the steep rise in C02 since industrialization

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities (US geological survey)
-another skeptic favourite, to bad "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes". To find, click on the "effects" tab and then scroll down.

Correlation of C02 and temperature (Skeptical science)
-Show graphical relationship between C02 and temperature over 450 000 years. Plus explains (rather technically) why C02 changes lag temperature changes during iceage- interglacial transitions.

+/- Sea level rise and ice melt (Glaciers, Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic)

Recent sea level rise (CSIRO)
Last few hundred years (CSIRO)
- note that the average 20th century rise was 1.7 mm/yr. While in the last two decades it has been 3.3 mm/yr. It would appear sea level rise is increaseing in speed.

Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland (Skeptical science)
- Review results of a recent scientific paper which shows rapid increases in ice loss from Antartica and Greenland

Melting of glaciers (Sketpical science)
-Combines results from several papers to show how almost all studied glaciers are melting

Melting of arctic ice cap (NOAA)
-shows how both winter ice extend and especially summer ice extent have decreased. Scroll down to figure S2.

Solar activity vs temperature rise
No correlation between solar activity and global warming (Skeptical science)
-summaries scientific papers on solar activity.

Attribution of climate change - two slightly different ways of looking at it
Effect on radiative forcing (IPCC FAQs)
Effect on temperature (Global warming art)


The Earths energy balance and how we know global warming is occurring (Skeptical science)
-summaries several lines of evidence to show how we know the earth is warming due to greenhouse gasses.


Comparisons of emissions from different countries (Washington Post)
-shows levels of emission per country and per capita up to 2006. Australia is the 15th biggest polluter worldwide per total emissions and the 2nd biggest per person.


C02 abatement cost curve. Created by McKinsey and Co. Shows the "cost" and effect of various emission reduction strategies by 2030. Note that many ares especially in efficiency save money.