Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Mikemcc]

So, you accuse me of lying about your 1% fixation, then use it in posts 2575-2577...

Three points from those points:

1. The ML CO2 data is not rising at 1% yr^-12. Modern models don't use constant CO2 rise unless they use it as a short range approximation. Modern models use emission scenarios.
2. You try to conflate the '1%' value to all GHGs without providing any data.
3. Why do you continue to refuse to look at data prior to 1980? The logical, and observed, conclusion is that it doesn't fit your conclusion and that you are desperate to avoid addressing the the atmospheric C02 concentration over the last 50 years. If you were to do so it would kill your initial linear increase scenario, though it would agree with your later linearly increasing rate of increase scenario, even though your rate of increase is wrong.

 

[Trakar]

Nonsense, it's clearly indicated by defining the interval, 30 years.

Anything outside the interval is irrelevant, that should be obvious to anyone.

And what makes 30 years a relevent defining interval?

No, your error is mistaking a question for an argument.

seriously?!

When you decide to learn a bit more about the subjects you profess education in and/or decide to engage in an honest discussion of the science at whatever level of understanding you practically possess, I will be happy to enjoin that discussion.

 

[Reality Check]

What's dumb about this value?

There is thing dumb about the value .
What is dumb is thinking that anyone wold be dumb enough to think that piloting a graph of a constant value would not get a horizontal line.

This increase wasn't pulled out of the air (er..well it was actually) it's based on observations, and that includes the Mauna Loa data.

Ann your citations are?
And how come Mauna Loa data never changes by 1% per year?

I think your confusion lies in your misunderstanding the difference between rate and what's shown on your little graph. It may do you well to stop looking at the graph and consider the raw data.

I think your confusion lies in your inability to underatand that the Mauna Loa data does not increase by 1% per year !

We have considered the raw data:

• It starts at a linear increase of 0.27%.
• It ends wiith a linear increase of 0.5%
• And we are smart enough to know that 1% is not 0.27% nor is it 0.5%.

P.S. Yet more confusion from you: The graph of the Mauna Loa data is not my graph (CO2 shame) nor are the other graphs on that page.

 

[Reality Check]

Again this is incorrect. You've been shown peer reviewed science that clearly indicates the value and it's usage.

Again this is incorrect. You shown no peer reviewed science that clearly indicates that the Mauaa Loa data has the value .

You haven't even drawn the proper graph.

Edited by LashL: 

Moderated thread

I do not need to draw the graph because it has already been drawn (CO2 shame)

This is the "typical" value used. You don't have the "actual" data and are obviously unable to calculate it yourself.

We have shown you the actual Mauna Loa data and the calculations. There is no 1% annual increase in the Mauna Loa. It stars at 0.27% and rises to 0.5%.

You keep mistaking a picture you found for "the data". The picture is just a representation of the data. One of many.

Really stating the obvious - the graph of the data is obviously a representation of the data. One of many.
It is the data that states that it is idoitic to state that the Mauna Loa data has a annual increase of 1%.
It is the graph that shows graphically )) that that it is idoitic to state that the Mauna Loa data has a annual increase of 1%.

The Mauna Loa data is only part of the 1%. As has been mentioned numerous times and you fail to recognize this is for all GHG's.

I know that the Mauna Loa data is only for CO2. As has been mentioned numerous times.

Again more frantic hand waving over something as simple as a 1% yearly increase in rate. It's typical of alarmists, it needs pointing out

Again more frantic hand waving over your delusions about "alarmists", it needs pointing out

Again this 1% is all GHG's and not just the Mauna Loa data. You continue to make this basic mistake.

Again this 0.2% to 0.5% is CO2 and just the Mauna Loa data. You continue to make this basic mistake.

 

[Reality Check]

Again this 1% is all GHG's and not just the Mauna Loa data. You continue to make this basic mistake.

In addition:
You continue to make the basic mistake of thinking that we are talking about all GHG's despite the fact that the actual Mauna Loa data is being constantly mentioned and that the of CO2 shame page is all about the Mauna Loa data.
However...
I take it that your position is now that you agree with us that there is no 1% compounding increase per year in the Mauna Loa data (it stars as 0.27% and is currently 0.5%).

Now show the some citations to the actual data that shows a 1% increase per year in all GHG's.
For some reason your other citations are to the use of 1% compondong increases in CO2, e.g.

Assertion -
Proffered support -

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/tk0401.pdf - "Impact of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation:
Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Parameterization"
​

...
Reality -
In reading further into the study, the authors explain: "...The +1% yr^-1 compounded CO2-increase scenario represents an idealized greenhouse gas forcing scenario, rather than a forecast of future radiative forcing..." they then spend the rest of the study section describing how the senarios they selected for this research focussed on idealized responses and parameter selection in order to emphasize the impacts they were looking for with regards to hurricane formation (namely enhanced tropical sea surface temperatures and little change in lower tropospheric humidity - conditions identified inother studies as key elements of hurricane formation.

and try to cite recent papers. Climate science is a rapidly progressing science as already pointed out

Before getting to the contents of the paper, it is important to note that while the first cite was a nearly decade old paper relying on out-dated models that was more than a decade old by the time of its usage by that study's researchers, this paper itself was published in 1996. Another problem with slip-shod term/phrase google searches when you don't understand or care about the actual science.

 

[Furcifer]

So, you accuse me of lying about your 1% fixation, then use it in posts 2575-2577...

Three points from those points:

1. The ML CO2 data is not rising at 1% yr^-1

That's OK because we're talking about the increase in rate of emissions anyways.

2. Modern models don't use constant CO2 rise unless they use it as a short range approximation. Modern models use emission scenarios.

This is a lie, it's something you made up. We've already seen several models that use a constant 1% increase in CO2 emissions. Not all models use emissions scenarios, although I agree it's quite common to see.

2. You try to conflate the '1%' value to all GHGs without providing any data.

It's pretty evident from the graph you yourself provided it's for GHG's and not just CO2

3. Why do you continue to refuse to look at data prior to 1980? The logical, and observed, conclusion is that it doesn't fit your conclusion and that you are desperate to avoid addressing the the atmospheric C02 concentration over the last 50 years. If you were to do so it would kill your initial linear increase scenario, though it would agree with your later linearly increasing rate of increase scenario, even though your rate of increase is wrong.

Because it's not relevant to the discussion.

 

[Furcifer]

And what makes 30 years a relevent defining interval?

3 things, the anomaly in 1980, the span is typical for observing climate change and variability, and because that's what I read.

When you decide to learn a bit more about the subjects you profess education in and/or decide to engage in an honest discussion of the science at whatever level of understanding you practically possess, I will be happy to enjoin that discussion.

Well here's the first indicator in spotting an alarmist; "You don't understand like I understand".
I'll add the "When all else fails claim superior understanding of the issue." to the Alarmist Manifesto^tm

 

[Furcifer]

Again this is incorrect. You shown no peer reviewed science that clearly indicates that the Mauaa Loa data has the value .

lol, I didn't try to tie the Mauna Loa data in to the discussion on the 1% increase in emissions rate over the last 30 years.

We have shown you the actual Mauna Loa data and the calculations. There is no 1% annual increase in the Mauna Loa. It stars at 0.27% and rises to 0.5%.

We're talking about the emissions rate, not the amount of CO2 measure in Hawaii.

Really stating the obvious - the graph of the data is obviously a representation of the data. One of many.
It is the data that states that it is idoitic to state that the Mauna Loa data has a annual increase of 1%.
It is the graph that shows graphically )) that that it is idoitic to state that the Mauna Loa data has a annual increase of 1%.

Obviously, it's idiotic to even discuss the Mauna Loa data because it doesn't real directly relate to the increase in emissions over the last 30 years.

But I didn't bring it up, someone else did.

I know that the Mauna Loa data is only for CO2. As has been mentioned numerous times.

Not only that but it isn't relevant to discussion on the emissions rate.

Again more frantic hand waving over your delusions about "alarmists", it needs pointing out

I agree.

Again this 0.2% to 0.5% is CO2 and just the Mauna Loa data. You continue to make this basic mistake.

We're talking about the rate of emissions, not the Mauna Loa data anyways.

 

[Furcifer]

In addition:
You continue to make the basic mistake of thinking that we are talking about all GHG's despite the fact that the actual Mauna Loa data is being constantly mentioned and that the of CO2 shame page is all about the Mauna Loa data.
However...
I take it that your position is now that you agree with us that there is no 1% compounding increase per year in the Mauna Loa data (it stars as 0.27% and is currently 0.5%).

I really don't know what you're talking about anymore. It went something like this:
"It's not business as usual, the constant 1% increase in emissions rate over the last 30 years suggests to me at least we are doing something"
"It's not constant it's exponential"
"No, it's 1%,1%..."
"Here's a graph of the Mauna Loa data, see it's exponential"
"That's only the CO2 concentration, not the GHG emissions rate, you'd have to do some math to get from that graph to the 1%"
"You made up 1%"
"No I didn't, the 1% is a typical value used in models see here"
"So you're wrong, the Mauna Loa data isn't 1%
"I never said it was, although I suppose it can be used to help calculate the 1% using some proportionality and GWP"

Now show the some citations to the actual data that shows a 1% increase per year in all GHG's.
For some reason your other citations are to the use of 1% compondong increases in CO2, e.g.

The 1% applies to the rate of emissions, not CO2. Although I'm pretty sure it can be calculated.

 

[Furcifer]

There is thing dumb about the value .
What is dumb is thinking that anyone wold be dumb enough to think that piloting a graph of a constant value would not get a horizontal line.

And yet there are several people confused about this in this very thread.

And how come Mauna Loa data never changes by 1% per year?

Because emissions aren't high enough to create that much change.

I think your confusion lies in your inability to underatand that the Mauna Loa data does not increase by 1% per year !

We have considered the raw data:

• It starts at a linear increase of 0.27%.
• It ends wiith a linear increase of 0.5%
• And we are smart enough to know that 1% is not 0.27% nor is it 0.5%.

P.S. Yet more confusion from you: The graph of the Mauna Loa data is not my graph (CO2 shame) nor are the other graphs on that page.

I'm confused as to why anyone would think the Mauna Loa data is directly related to emissions rate. I don't know why people brought it up if they can't see it's not really related to the discussion.

Unless someone is trying to cite it as proof that it's "business as usual"?

 

[Reality Check]

lol, I didn't try to tie the Mauna Loa data in to the discussion on the 1% increase in emissions rate over the last 30 years.

lol - you still do not understand that the Mauna Loa data is what I and you have been discussing for weeks now.

We're talking about the emissions rate, not the amount of CO2 measure in Hawaii.

That is rather deluded: the main topic we are talking about is the Mauna Loa data. The emissions rate is a side issue (which I think I first mentioned in our discussion).


Or are you just shifting goalposts from

1. A 1% increase per year in CO2 to
2. A 1% increase per year in GHG's to
3. Now a 1% increase per year in CO2 emissions?

Obviously, it's idiotic to even discuss the Mauna Loa data because it doesn't real directly relate to the increase in emissions over the last 30 years.

Obvously that is an idiotic statement because the Mauna Loa data is a direct measure of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 50 years and indirectlly relates to the increase in emissions over the last 50 years.

But that does not matter because our discussion is about the Mauna Loa data not the emission increases.

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem, What is increasing by 1% per year (emissions, CO2, GHGs)

I really don't know what you're talking about anymore. It went something like this:
"It's not business as usual, the constant 1% increase in emissions rate over the last 30 years suggests to me at least we are doing something"
"It's not constant it's exponential"
"No, it's 1%,1%..."
"Here's a graph of the Mauna Loa data, see it's exponential"
"That's only the CO2 concentration, not the GHG emissions rate, you'd have to do some math to get from that graph to the 1%"
"You made up 1%"
"No I didn't, the 1% is a typical value used in models see here"
"So you're wrong, the Mauna Loa data isn't 1%
"I never said it was, although I suppose it can be used to help calculate the 1% using some proportionality and GWP"

Still wrong.

1. A constant 1% componding increase per year is not any business as usual sceneraio. It is the idealized greenhouse gas forcing scenario. It ignores real world economics, e.g. decreasing fossil fuel resources.
2. I have never stated that the graph of the Mauna Loa data is exponential. I expect it to be at least quadratic because the rate of increase increases.
   
   An exponential increase is an implication of your assertion (a compounding increase is exponential in the continuous limit). Or in your own words "super exponential":
   

   Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
   People disagreed, but got stuck on whether it was linear as a percentage increase or super exponential as a yearly particulate increase.

The converstation really went something ike this:
"Here is the Mauna Loa data. It is not linear as a child with a ruler can see"
"No, it's 1%,1%..."
"Here is the Mauna Loa data. It starts with an 0.27% increase per year"
"No, it's 1%,1%..."
"Here is the Mauna Loa data. It is currently has a 0.5% increase per year'"
"No, it's 1%,1%..."
"Here is the Mauna Loa data. The rate increrased from 0.27% per year to 0.5% per year"
"No, it's 1%,1%..."

The 1% applies to the rate of emissions, not CO2. Although I'm pretty sure it can be calculated.

You really need to make up youir mind. Is the 1%:

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
Again this 1% is all GHG's and not just the Mauna Loa data.

or is it the rate of emissions. Or is it something else yet again?
Remember to include citations so that we so not think that you are doing the crank denialist/alarmist moving of the goalposts.

Lets pin this down:

3bodyproblem,
Exactly what is increasing by 1% per year (emissions of CO2, measurements of CO2, GHGs, something else)?
​

What citations do you have to support this figure of 1%?

If it is not CO2 then:
Why were your previous citations about the ideal 1% increase in CO2 used as input to old models?

I am pretty sure that the rate of emissions and the rate of CO2 increases can be calculated because they have been calculated !

 

[Mikemcc]

That's OK because we're talking about the increase in rate of emissions anyways.

|No - you have changed to talking about emissions in general, no one else decided to change that criteria, the rest of us have been discussing CO2, something that has plenty of easily quantifiable data.

This is a lie, it's something you made up. We've already seen several models that use a constant 1% increase in CO2 emissions. Not all models use emissions scenarios, although I agree it's quite common to see.

How can it be a lie when I linked to the GISS ModelE site? You are starting to sound delusional. Refer back to the post from TS that showed the flaws in your understanding of the papers that you linked to.

It's pretty evident from the graph you yourself provided it's for GHG's and not just CO2

How can it be evident from a graph that solely examines CO2? Do you have any data on combined emissions? How is that generated to take into account differing efficiencies of the different gases and the differences in their optical properties? Or, more likely, is it true that it's a figment of your imagination and you cannot provide any links to that data because it doesn't exist in that format?

Because it's not relevant to the discussion.

Just because you want it to be irrelevant doesn't make it so. Looking further back shows that the rate of increase in CO2 has been increasing in an apparently linear manner since the 1960s to the present day.

 

[Mikemcc]

Found this site with present values of GHGs:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Given some of those figures (and admittly not having any intermediate figures) I'd say 3BPs 1% isn't even close.

 

[Furcifer]

Found this site with present values of GHGs:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Given some of those figures (and admittly not having any intermediate figures) I'd say 3BPs 1% isn't even close.

Nothing on that page says anything about the rate of increase in emissions. You willfully continue to overlook the difference between the rate of increase in emissions and the concentration.

 

[Furcifer]

lol - you still do not understand that the Mauna Loa data is what I and you have been discussing for weeks now.

No it isn't, the 1% increase has been the topic, it stemmed from that comment. It seems having an honest conversation with alarmists is almost impossible.

That is rather deluded: the main topic we are talking about is the Mauna Loa data. The emissions rate is a side issue (which I think I first mentioned in our discussion).

No, it was the 1% increase.

Or are you just shifting goalposts from

1. A 1% increase per year in CO2 to
2. A 1% increase per year in GHG's to
3. Now a 1% increase per year in CO2 emissions?

It's been a month and you still feign confusion over what the 1% increase is regarding? I think you're just being dishonest.

But that does not matter because our discussion is about the Mauna Loa data not the emission increases.

Again goal posts shifting, you continue to make erroneous statements and I believe this is on purpose. My original comment was on the 1% increase, it's been clarified numerous times, that 1% increase is in the rate of emissions.

The Mauna Loa data reflects this 1% increase, but it's not directly related. Were it directly related I would have brought it up. I didn't.

If you want to use the Mauna Loa data as a study aid in helping you see how this "typical" 1% increase in emissions rate comes about you're going to have to use some comprehension. If you can't I suggest you forget the Mauna Loa data and look elsewhere. If it's really important.

 

[Furcifer]

You really need to make up youir mind. Is the 1%:

or is it the rate of emissions. Or is it something else yet again?
Remember to include citations so that we so not think that you are doing the crank denialist/alarmist moving of the goalposts.

Lets pin this down:

3bodyproblem,
Exactly what is increasing by 1% per year (emissions of CO2, measurements of CO2, GHGs, something else)?
​

What citations do you have to support this figure of 1%?

If it is not CO2 then:
Why were your previous citations about the ideal 1% increase in CO2 used as input to old models?

I am pretty sure that the rate of emissions and the rate of CO2 increases can be calculated because they have been calculated !

I'm still confused why you continue to discuss the Mauna Loa data if you think it doesn't apply?

I can see how it applies. From the increase in concentration of CO2 you can figure out the increase in other greenhouse gases, then figure out ho much stays airborne and how much gets absorbed in the oceans, to finally arrive at the increase in emissions. Calculate that from year to year and you can finally arrive at the increase in the rate of emissions, this now legendary 1%.

But if you can't see this why not look elsewhere? I've already cited papers that use this "typical" 1% increase in rate.

It's not really important though, as I've said numerous times, the important part is that it is what it is and not higher because of what we are doing. If it's 2% per year at least it's not the 2.5% it would be under a business as usual scenario.

That's why it's important to look at the rate of increase and not the concentration, the change in rate is important when we're looking at the effort to curb emissions.

 

[CapelDodger]

Found this site with present values of GHGs:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

"The value given by IPCC 2001, page 185, is 280 ± 10 ppm. This is supported by measurements of CO2 in old, confined, and reasonably well-dated air. Such air is found in bubbles trapped in annual layers of ice in Antarctica, in sealed brass buttons on old uniforms, airtight bottles of wine of known vintage, etc."

(My emphasis).

Any day in which I learn something is a day not wasted . What else might be in the "etc", I wonder?

"... if every gas decayed according to a simple expotential curve ..."

(That's in Point 4.) I assume "expotential" is a typo, but it's definitely a good word in search of a meaning.

 

[CapelDodger]

Turning attention to what's actually happening given emissions so far :-

USGS Study Finds Recent Snowpack Declines in the Rocky Mountains Unusual Compared to Past Few Centuries

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleas...ns-Unusual-Compared-to-Past-Few-Centuries.cfm

With a few exceptions (the mid-14th and early 15th centuries), the snowpack reconstructions show that the northern Rocky Mountains experience large snowpacks when the southern Rockies experience meager ones, and vice versa. Since the 1980s, however, there were simultaneous declines along the entire length of the Rocky Mountains, and unusually severe declines in the north.

This has already been a busy year for Rocky Mountain snowpack, and summer is yet to come. I doubt that flooding will be the next issue.

USGS scientist and co-author Julio Betancourt explains that “The difference in snowpack along the north and south changed in the 1980s, as the unprecedented warming in the springtime began to overwhelm the precipitation effect, causing snowpack to decline simultaneously in the north and south. Throughout the West, springtime tends to be warmer during El Niño than La Niña years, but the warming prior to the 1980s was usually not enough to offset the strong influence of precipitation on snowpack.”

Evidence of a tipping-point. Prior to the 80's warming was mostly from sub-zero to less sub-zero, but on an increasing baseline the balance has shifted to above zero. A critical point where water is concerned.

 

[bit_pattern]

An overdue interjection into Australian climate politics, as sad as that may seem in the second decade of the 21st century - a real reflection on the garrulousness of Australian politics

Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community

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.”

Forgot this, can a mod possibly merge this with my last post? Please?

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