Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


World cooling – but scientists insist that warming is real

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 April 2008
CLIMATOLOGISTS may insist the world is getting warmer and that climate change is here to stay.
But the meteorological phenomenon called La Niña, in which the central and eastern Pacific Ocean is getting cooler, means global temperatures will drop slightly this year.

But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we
would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.

The phenomenon is sister to the better known El Niño, or the Little Boy, which appears when too little cold water rises to the ocean's surface, causing the planet's temperature to rise and bringing major disruption to weather systems.

La Niña has caused floods in Mozambique, and freezing temperatures in China.

David Parker, research scientist at the Met Office's Hadley Centre, which studies climate change and variation, said La Niña was part of the natural cycle of the world's seas.

"It happens of its own accord, and eventually, when it finishes, the effect wears off and the world's temperature will rise again," he said.

"While it is in effect, the world temperature will cool by a quarter of a degree, which isn't a lot, given that we've had a half to three-quarters of a degree warming already, but it's quite a chunk relative to the global warming we've had so far."

He added that though Britain had not felt the full force of La Niña's influence, it would affect the country's weather.

"It means that the climate will be colder, but it has different effects across the world," he said. "We had a mild winter this year, which to some extent goes along with La Niña.

There's also a greater than average chance of a damper summer – which I think the Met Office has already forecast – but not to the same extent as last summer. In fact, last summer's damp weather was probably connected with La Niña."

However, Mr Parker said that it was wrong to believe the drop in temperatures meant global warming was not a reality.

"You have to be very careful how you look at these figures; 1998 was an El Niño year. The current temperature was unusually warm for then. Now we have a La Niña and it's unusually cool compared with trends nowadays. If you take a trend over ten years, you don't get a warming, but that's too short a period in which to get a trend."

"In a proper long-term sense we are on a warming trend.

"The expectation is that the temperature of the world is going up and up. There's no evidence that global warming isn't happening."

The World Meteorological Organisation has pointed out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th century the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.

Dr Neil Wells, senior lecturer in oceanography at the National Oceanography Centre at Southampton University, said: "It is a major event because it is so vast – it is one of the major causes of weather variation. It redistributes heavy rain where you wouldn't expect it. Northern Australia tends to be affected by it. The evidence that climate change has affected it just isn't strong.

"We know this has happened for thousands of years – the flow of the Nile has been recorded as being affected by it – and that it has gone through various long period cycles, but we cannot say that climate change has been affected."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 April 2008 9:55 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

,

05/04/2008 00:10:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

eyeswider,

ole 05/04/2008 01:21:31
There is no evidence. Do you honestly think we are willfully ignorant?

Budget is everything.

3

eyeswider,

hmmm 05/04/2008 01:30:53
IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, in an April 10, 2007 article. "Global temperatures have not been rising for eight years." In a July 3, 2007 blog post, "I have written many pages of comments on the various IPCC Reports and most of them have been ignored." "The very few comments made by most of the reviewers suggest that there may be very few actual people who ever read the report itself all the way through except those who write it," he added. "The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so,"

4

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 05/04/2008 01:32:07
Spot on #2, cooling warming cooling warming - They will say anything to justify their budget.
Even if it is warming or cooling it is sod all to do with man, so better get used to it !
5

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 05/04/2008 01:34:31
#3 What is even worse is that they issued the summary for policy makers first and then adjusted the full report to match the summary.
6

rlm,

planet earth 05/04/2008 01:50:57
I am old enough to remember reading about how the earth's temperature was cooling and we were heading toward another ice age in the distant future. This was in the early to mid seventies.
7

,

05/04/2008 02:03:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 02:37:30
For years now, the effect of El Nino and La Nina is openly part of the weather reporting in Australia. Yes even on the nightly news. The reason is obviously the Pacific tempature movements. Vice versa the people of California do exactly the same thing because the people of pacific rim countries, know what the effects of either one means. When California is experiences higher than normal tempatures, massive fires engulf the enviroment. In Australia, the opposite effect happens as regular as a fine tuned watch. Australia has this year received record rainfalls, while California has had massive bush fires, to which Australia sent experienced firefighters to assist the locals.

Australia is the oldest continent of all, and because large parts of it have been dry for thousands of years, erosion opens up rock and soil history which tells a succinct history of tempatures and enviromental disasters. Most of the Australian Scientests have come out,and openly criticised the SO CALLED EXPERTS around the World as no more than people who are misinforming and promoting Scientific Bunkum, because the Enviromental Industry is a very lucrative Industry for them and the Governments, who have created a new income source for both. As for that very well known failed candidate for the American Presidential Ticket, well what is the best way to actually be successful in future campaigns than. Thats right win a Nobel Prize and get himself a better reputation as a caring person, who would make the best person to take over from Obama.

Dont get me wrong, I am all for recycling our waste, and definately think it is time for us to stop Shoiting in our own nest. We may not be responsable for Global Warming, but thats no reason to be dirty sods, who choose to live in pigsty rather than tidying up after ourselves.

We have to stop cutting down trees, because the tree can hold the enviroment together. Australia has now got a major problem with Saline rising to the earths surface and contamina
9

A Better Way,

05/04/2008 02:40:30
continued:

We have to stop cutting down trees, because the tree can hold the enviroment together. Australia has now got a major problem with Saline rising to the earths surface and contaminating both plant life and other living creatures that keep their rivers healthy. At least now they are planting millions upon millions of trees, but it got nothing to do with the warming of the earth.

Believe what you like, I wouldnt wish it any other way, but stop listening to some local councillor who wants to slap you with a rates rise based on Crrrraaaappp.
10

Conan,

Chile 05/04/2008 03:33:09
I'm still waiting for the much-threatened coming ice Age. Its been more than 30 years since that was the left's mantra - when's it going to get here, or was 'ice age' removed from the left's script and 'global warming' substituted when too many people started doubting (aka 'deniers')?
11

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta;. .....a place in the Sun in California 05/04/2008 04:43:32
World cooling – but scientists insist that warming is real
--------------------------------------------
Dudes,
Of course the Planet is cooling , and it will continue to cool down for hundreds of millions of years into the future.

Its the planet's Molten Iron Core stupid.
Any school girl or boy can tell U that...

As to the atmosphere on its surface, the combination of 6 billion homosapiens farting,and driving ICE vehicles.

The billions of four legged animals farting ,plus regular volcanoes erupting, and sea creatures multiplying (unless they are killed by the homosapeins.) .

What do we expect dudes, but a slow rise in temperature of the surface of the planet .

Solution cull the homosapiens from 6 billion to under 3 billion and keep the population at that level. The same goes of all the farting animals.

Get a grip dudes , its not rocket science.

Capitalism as we know in 2008 is doomed, since its based on the premise of supply and demand, and an infinite supply of people and products . Cannot be maintained , Our planet has finite resources.

Capitalism is a worse fairy tale, than The KORAN, The Bible, or The Tanakh.

So take a chill pill Dudes and relax.

And keep breathing that oxygen, there is no conscious alternative.

GC

12

Guga II,

Rockall 05/04/2008 06:19:23
Obviously the Earth's climate will change, it has been changing since the Earth began, and will continue changing till the Earth is a small ball of ash.

However, the Earth's temperature has been dropping for the last 65 million years (junk scientists can easily check this). There may have been some minor variations in the past few decades which have seen the temperature rise slightly; and, by coincidence, the same amount of rise as the planet Mars. This does not, however, justify the junk scientists coming out with their global warming garbage, nor for politicians to try and jump on the bandwagon to try and raise even more taxes; or the scams on "carbon trading".

The variations in our climate are a direct result of variations in the output of the sun, nothing else. This is why Mars suffers similar variations. Either that, or these Martians have one helluva lot of 4x4's.
13

PacificGatePost,

N.A. 05/04/2008 07:57:11
While Al Gore's efforts to clean up the air and water should be applauded, his argument as well as that of others on Global Warming is rooted in information now appearing to be incorrect.......

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/03/argo-4900781s-letter-to-bickering.html

It seems we're not really warming, we're cooling.

14

corran,

hebrides 05/04/2008 08:09:08
In 1996 the UN`s IPCC reported that they had found a "human Fingerprint" in the current global warming. That statement was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC`s 1996 report for political not scientific, reasons. Then the "science volume" was edited to take out five different statements- all of which had been approved by the panels scientific consultants- specifically saying no such "human footprint" had been found. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a US government employee ,publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes.He was under pressure from top US government officials to do so.
This extract is from the Wall Street Journal of 12th June 1996 and taken from the excellent book by S.Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery
15

Reckless,

Global warming tax 05/04/2008 08:22:09
The eco-mentalists' 2 mins' of hate continues.

The truth is that global warming is a huge lie. How can we trust a government that imposes taxes based on a lie?

No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm
16

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 08:29:30
The following series of temperature anomaly maps of the Pacific Ocean (produced by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) shows the development of the La Nina very clearly.

The greeny/blue colours show areas where the sea surface temperature is lower than 1971-2000 average, and the yellow/orange/red colours show where it is warmer. The dates in the following list refer to the ends of the week in question.

Look particularly at the difference between Jan 2007 (which was 1.08C above the average global temperature for 1951-1980, NASA GISS figure) and Jan 2008 (which was only 0.31C above) The dramatic fall in global average temperature (0.75C between Jan 2007 and Jan 2008) corresponds with a dramatic cooling of the surface of much of the Pacific. This latter is caused by an overturning of the waters of the Pacific bringing up cold waters from the depths. The oceans have enormous thermal capacity - far greater than the atmosphere or land surface - and variations in sea surface temperatures thus can have dramatic effects. That is what we have experienced recently.
Here are the maps:

1st July 2006: http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/wkanomv2_20060628.png

6th Jan 2007:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/wkanomv2_20070103.png

9th June 2007:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/wkanomv2_20070606.png

12th Jan 2008:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/wkanomv2_20080109.png

9th Feb 2008:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/wkanomv2_20080206.png

8th Mar 2008:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/wkanomv2_20080305.png

29th Mar 2008:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/wkanomv2_20080326.png

T
17

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 08:30:24
Contd:
The menu for the maps is here:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/
18

11+failed,

05/04/2008 08:31:16
"If you take a trend over ten years, you don't get a warming, but that's too short a period in which to get a trend."
Whatever happened to all those fairy tales about three of the hottest years on record occurring in the past five years and the like?
19

11+failed,

the pans 05/04/2008 08:46:20
Curiously I don't recall all these headlines ten years ago proclaiming 1998 as exceptionally warm year caused by a juxtaposition of some perfectly normal events. Equally I don't recall any predictions of a fall in global temperature of 0.6C to 0.75C for 2006-7. Now we have "While it is in effect, the world temperature will cool by a quarter of a degree" Where did that come from? Does Mr Parker mean there will be an addition quarter of a degree fall this year?
Perhaps some of these global cooling deniers can provide some links to help my recall and understanding?
20

eyeswider,

straight from the beeb 05/04/2008 09:10:16
"The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm
21

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 09:11:04
#20 11+failed

It has been pointed out ad nauseum for years that 1998 was an El Nino year, and that was the cause of the unusual warmth in that year. Meanwhile, global warming deniers were falsely proclaiming that, because the peak of temperature in 1998 had not been exceeded, that meant that "global warming stopped in 1998". It was nonsense then, and it is nonsense still.

It is really fairly simple:

1.The increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increase in the amount of heat captured from the sun. This results in a LONG TERM trend. The long term trend since 1975 is (and remains) +0.019deg Celsius per year.

2. Events like El Nino (when the ocean surface becomes abnormally warm) cause an abnormal reduction of heat transfer into the Pacific, causing global temperatures to rise by a global average of about 0.02C. That is what happened in 1998.

3. Events like La Nina (when the ocean surface becomes abnormally cold) cause an abnormal increase in of heat transfer into the Pacific, causing global temperatures to fall. That is what is happening at present.

Both El Nino and La Nina are powerful enough to cause significant temperature divergences from the long term trend: that is what we are observing. These divergences provide NO information about whether global warming has stopped: at present there is NO evidence that that is the case.
22

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 09:13:57
Sorry, in 2. above (#22) that should be, "causing global temperatures to rise by a global average of about 0.2C"
23

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 05/04/2008 09:25:02
Global Warming is a conspiracy enacted by the UN to bring about a global carbon tax - which will raise more money for governments than ANY other source of tax. The central myth is that carbon dioxide causes global warming, which is physically impossible. Carbon dioxide is a TRACE GAS that is found at just 400 parts per million in any volume of atmosphere. That means that in any unit of air, 999,600 parts are NOT carbon dioxide.
Here's a thought experiment. 400 parts per million equates to 4 parts in 10,000.

OK, take 10,000 white ping pong balls and put them in an empty swimmig pool. Now add FOUR red ping pong balls and mix well. Now go and try to find the 4 red balls among 10,000 white ones. You will be looking a long time. How can four molecules of non reactive, stable, non catalytic gas possibly affect the massively larger bulk of the other 10,000 molecules around them. Answer - they can't. Carbon dioxide cannot possibly CAUSE warming of the planet. All the evidence shows that this trace gas increases AFTER warming occurs - as more plants grow, more material rots in a warmer climate and more trace CO2 is produced. Of course the UN and Gordon Brown don't want to hear that - because trillions of dollars of CARBON TAX are all that they can see. Power, money, control, the first global tax - a step towards global control. These people want to tax you for the breath you exhale - that is full of CO2.
24

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 09:26:48
The third sentence in this report is misleading and does not appear in the WMO press release.

It is clear from the Met Office charts that the warming trend remains in place:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUT3.html
25

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 09:28:24
24. Go away and learn some infrared spectroscopy.
26

Alexander,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 09:29:35
We get some real stupid people on here.
Everyone knows that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, caused by human activity, is causing the planet to warm. Pre-industrial CO2 was 280ppv that has been increasing rapidly and we are told that it may well be reaching a tipping point where we shall have "runaway" global warming.
Curiously 20% if the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the pre-industrial period has occurred in the past ten years alone, accompanied to a near one degree fall in global temperatures. However, I am not stupid, this fall in global temperature is caused by -- global warming!
27

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 09:34:48
Climate Scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer, former director the US Weather Satellite Service, "Good evidence confirms that current warming is mostly part of a natural climate cycle, most likely driven by the sun. The available data show that the human contribution from greenhouse gases is not detectable and must be insignificant. It is a non-problem. Trying to mitigate a natural warming (or cooling) is futile and a big waste of money better spent on real societal problems."

28

11+failed,

the pans 05/04/2008 09:35:14
22
And the fall in temperature of 0.75C between J07 and J08 was forecast, where?
29

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 09:45:38
28. Singer is paid by big oil to spread disinformation.
30

eyeswider,

hahahaa 05/04/2008 09:51:42
#27 Alexander

Already the stupid card?

http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html

From the above:
"The history of climate and CO2 concentration shows that temperature changes precede CO2 changes and can not be a significant driver of climate."

and

"The benefits of CO2 emissions greatly exceed any likely harmful effects. Several authorities who have studied solar cycles have warned that the Earth may soon enter a cooling phase as the Sun is expected to become less active."

I think you will be too ignorant to bother reading the above, very simply and comprehensively delivered, breakdown of the hype. Prove me wrong.


There is a great temperature trend graph at the start btw.



31

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/04/2008 10:02:08
What a relief that all of the Global Warming propaganda is now dying on its feet. The truth is that there are hundreds of scientists who don't go along with the anthropogenic climate change theory. These scientists are experts in this field. How did we ever get to this Orwellian situation where the pro-GW lobby can deny serious arguments to the contrary and is many cases literally shout down any opposition.

The term of preference for them is "denier" with all of its sinister Nazi connotations.

At last we are waking up to this thought control.
32

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 10:07:15
#24 Tweedmouth

Yes, Tweedmouth, you have made your embarrassingly idiotic argument about ping pong balls et al before, and quite few folk have pointed out to you its idiocy, whilst no doubt trying not to fall off their chairs with laughter. Here is another similar experiment, (which in all kindness I would advise you not to actually try): Add 4ppm of hydrogen cyanide gas to the air you breath. I think you would find it has quite an effect, though I doubt you would be in a position to write back and tell us of your experiences thereafter.

As far as CO2 is concerned: you state it is a "non reactive, stable, non catalytic gas". But the chemical properties of CO2 are irrelevant with respect to its ability to absorb infra red radiation - which is how it warms the Earth. These effects have been very well understood for over a century. The ability of a particular molecule to absorb infra red radiation relates to the strength of the chemical bonds within the molecule and to the masses of the atoms at the ends of those bonds: those factors influence the size of the quanta of energy (ie frequencies of light) that can be absorbed. When a molecule absorbs a quanta of infra red radiation, it causes the molecule to bend or vibrate more rapidly. The bonds and masses in CO2 happen to be such to allow it to absorb at infra red frequencies. (So can water, methane, nitrous oxide and various man-made organic chlorine compounds, but oxygen and nitrogen and argon cannot). That absorption traps heat on Earth that would otherwise escape into space, thus warming up the Earth.

As far as a warming earth causing more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere - yes, of course it does, by entirely unrelated mechanisms. The fact is that 1. increase CO2 causes increased warming and 2. increased warming cause increased atmospheric CO2. That BOTH are true gives rise to the POSITIVE FEEDBACK mechanisms that are one of the most worrying aspects of global warming, since that is the basis of the "
33

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 10:09:30
#32 connaughtboy

Sadly it isn't over yet.

AGW deniers don’t get funding even if they seek it. Simple as that. It amazes me that there is any work being done in that particular vacuum. This produces several outcomes. The obvious being that deniers are poor and therefore poorly represented in the media and academia.
The increasingly shrill bleating from the alarmist warmers camp as their proof dissolves and the Sun comes around to save us from unwarranted draconian intervention into our lives shows their desperation for sure but Al Bore has not just been given .3 of a billion dollars for advertising so as to preach to the choir.

We need to actually fight this siht rather than just sit here griping and sniping.


34

Unimpressed one,

05/04/2008 10:13:38
"Singer is paid by big oil to spread disinformation."

This idiotic lie is why so many people give no credence to claims made by the green bams, such as yourself, who have a blind faith in the doom scenario. Christ I can't wait for the day when the obvious dawns and the media herd reverses its fad and pillories all the loonies for being so gullible. I fancy it may not be that far off.
35

eyeswider,

brrrrr 05/04/2008 10:19:46
#30 fred bloggs

That particular slander has been comprehensively debunked.

This is why I disregard anything you post.

Slioch and Guthrie also believe this lie so I have begun to think that what they post comes from a political position not their professedly scientific one.

If you can lie about this guy - even if, parrot fashion, you just took someone's word on the matter - then you are guilty of a far worse crime.


36

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 10:21:22
34. It is well known that the oil and coal industries in the US (is that your undisclosed location?) have funded people and phony institutes to spread lies and disinformation about global warming.
37

Toom,

05/04/2008 10:23:42
#24 - Tweedmouth says "OK, take 10,000 white ping pong balls and put them in an empty swimmig pool. Now add FOUR red ping pong balls and mix well. Now go and try to find the 4 red balls among 10,000 white ones. You will be looking a long time. How can four molecules of non reactive, stable, non catalytic gas possibly affect the massively larger bulk of the other 10,000 molecules around them. Answer - they can't. Carbon dioxide cannot possibly CAUSE warming of the planet."

It has been known and demonstrable since the 1860s that nitrogen and oxygen, comprising 99% of the atmosphere are relative neutral in trapping radiated heat.
It has been known and demonstrable since the 1860s that CO2 at 0.04% and methane at 0.002%, together with vapour vapour are the principal active greenhouse gases. Without them average surface air temperature would be -15C; with then it is approx +15C
At 0.04%, your ping pong ball analogy translates to 10,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2 per cubic centimetre of atmosphere. These molecules are travelling randomly at about 1600 Km per hour which is somewhat sufficient to transfer their heat/energy to the other components of air.
These are the accepted scientific and demonstrable facts which are usually acceptable by anyone with an informed opinion, whether it is for or against global warming. If you have evidence to the contrary then a Nobel prize awaits you. Please grace us by publishing your evidence here first.
38

eyeswider,

chilly bits 05/04/2008 10:24:32
#36 Rulesbutnotrulers

That is the other big lie. There is a shed load of oil and coal - and it just became a lot more profitable to bring to market as the prices have been manipulated to pay for war.



39

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 10:26:06
Further to my 38: it is well known that the two Freds - Singer and Seitz (the late) - took dollars from Exxon and others for anti-AGW propoganda but also from Philip Morris to tell us that smoking is good for us.
40

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 10:27:19
#29 11+failed

"And the fall in temperature of 0.75C between J07 and J08 was forecast, where?"

As far as I am aware no-one made such a forecast, nor do I think would anyone claim to be able to make forecasts of MONTHLY global temperatures concerning El Nino/La Nina events, which are difficult to forecast in advance. But I will forecast here that the overall ANNUAL drop in temperature as a result of this present La Nina (which is still continuing) will turn out to be about 0.2C. That doesn't require any more than an observation than that that is what normally happens as a result of a La Nina.

Incidentally, the global temperature INCREASE during the 1998 El Nina was very similar to our present La Nina decrease:

Feb 1997 +38C
Feb 1998 +1.02c (the peak month of the 1998 El Nino)

Thus, Feb 1997 to Feb 1998 increase = 0.64C.

The yearly 1998 increase = 0.223C above the long term trend on HADCRU compilation.
41

Unimpressed one,

05/04/2008 10:36:41
#41, "(I)t is well known that the two Freds - Singer and Seitz (the late) - took dollars from Exxon and others for anti-AGW propoganda but also from Philip Morris to tell us that smoking is good for us."

I assume you refer to the myth that passive smoking is harmful. The science said no but the anti-smoking brigade, such as ASH used dodgie stastisics to engineer a smoking ban. So again you parrot crap in typical greenie fashion in order to support your own flawed agenda.
42

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 10:47:35
#38 fred bloggs what is your undisclosed name?

That was money well spent then judging by all the edumacation displayed around the place.

#41 fred bloggs

Here is something of a movement to defend your namesake:

There is some wonderfully informed opinion on there and it gives me a little hope that the tide has turned.


Some stupid hack attacked Fred Singer on ABC.

There is loads of fallout.

Here is the original hit piece:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=4506059&page=1

and here is what has become a very public show of support for him:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/comments?type=story&id=4506059

Our very own inquisitors truthsleuth, fred bloggs, Guthrie and Slioch are now in a shrinking minority when it comes to slurring this icon of science and humanitarianism.

It would even seem he wasn't "paid off" by "big oil" after all. Gasp.


43

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 10:52:15
43. Am I surprised that the deniers of the harm caused by smokers to people sharing the same air space are also deniers of AGW?

No.
44

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 10:56:13
45. eyes-shut:

In 2007, Newsweek reported:

"In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty."
45

Neil,

Glasgow 05/04/2008 10:57:00
The problem with headlines saying "scientists say...." is that it is meaningless. Disagreement is what real science is about & since there are 100s of thousands of scientists across the world (such as the 19,000 who signed the widely unreported Oregon Petition against the warming scare) there are bound to be at least a plural number willing to support almost any journalistic point. The fact is that an awful lot of scientists say the warming claim is mince & the vast majority keep out of the way.

"Truthsleuth" perhaps, for the sake of truth you should rephrase:

Odd isn't it 10 years in their favour and its proof, no actual evidence for the alarmists claims and they want some.
46

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 11:02:18
43. Fred Seitz was a paid consultant for R J Reynolds corporation.
47

Alexander,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 11:03:24
31 eyeswider
Gee, thanks for the insult. Perhaps you should open your eyes a little wider and read what I wrote! I'll give you a clue, consider the relative dispositions of my tongue and cheek.
48

seanie,

05/04/2008 11:04:14
The La Nina will dissipate on a few months and average global temperatures will continue to rise, as they have done over the last 10 years, and within the next few years we'll have another El Nino and the 1998 (HadCRU)record will be decisivley broken.

Then the denialist will have to pick that year as the year "global warming stopped."

Up until the next peak as global temperatures continue to rise.
49

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 11:05:25
48. Everyone knows that the 'Oregon Petition' was phony
50

eyeswider,

sector 3 05/04/2008 11:05:27
Lovely stuff:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/comments?type=story&id=4506059

Particularly:

"If you want to determine who is the real fraud in the climate debate just think of who is literally making millions of dollars; Al Gore and Dr. James Hansen or Dr. Singer."



51

Toom,

05/04/2008 11:05:40
We have, as usual in these comments, our regular bald men arguing over combs. The Met office spokesman is careful to put the current year's projection into the context of the background trends. Our current and projected temperature is, as always, a combination of factors, including sun activity, El Nino and La Nina effects, and levels of greenhouse gases. Whatever the resulting temperature, an increased level of greenhouse gases will make it RELATIVELY HIGHER THAN IT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN.
If we were to experience one of the periodic Earth axis or orbit wobbles, or reduced sun activity, which results in cooling, then an increased greenhouse effect might, in effect, help keep things stable. Otherwise, in the current relatively quiescent period of natural factors, increasing CO2 is more likely to result in increasing temperature.
Since CO2 levels are measurably increasing, then that means their production is exceeding the available natural sinks' capacity to absorb them, and since human activity is releasing large amount of CO2 that means our activities are contributing to the greenhouse effect. I've yet to see any demonstrable or credible information or demonstration that things are otherwise.
It should also be borne in mind that the fact that the possibility of global warming may be exploited by capitalists or greens, and used to raise taxes, does not, per se, mean that it isn't happening.
52

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 11:07:21
48 & 52:

and guess who wrote the Oregon Petition?

None other that the notorious paid denialist:

Fred Seitz!
53

eyeswider,

ooops 05/04/2008 11:07:22
#50 Alexander

ooOOoops

I just feel on my face didn't I (-;

I am so used to writing here and being called a stupid liar that I my knee jerked. Irony goes over the heads of most of the alarmists in here I have found.



54

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 11:09:42
#55 as usual fred the link:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/comments?type=story&id=4506059

is pearls before swine.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.
55

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 11:13:58
57> eyes-shut:

I give you facts.

You give me links to denialist blogs.

Case proved.
56

11+failed,

the pans 05/04/2008 11:28:04
42
"nor do I think would anyone claim to be able to make forecasts of MONTHLY global temperatures"
It is annual changes that are being discussed not monthly. Seems you are going along with "Guthrie"(in hiding today apparently) who claimed earlier this week that a ten year fall in global temperatures was caused by two months of weather.
57

Toom,

05/04/2008 11:29:50
#53 Eyeswider "If you want to determine who is the real fraud in the climate debate just think of who is literally making millions of dollars; Al Gore and Dr. James Hansen or Dr. Singer."

One also has to consider the possibility that their income is directly and positively correlated with the credibility of their arguments.
If we are to accept the tenet that making millions from you viewpoint is evidence of your views being of doubtful validity, then many of our contributors to this discussion should be able to exploit this to their financial advantage.

58

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 11:34:30
#55 fred - it matters little who wrote it - who signed (and still does as the figure rises daily) it is what matters.

ABC News is a denialist blog - yep, sure anything you say. (backs away making conciliatory noises)


59

eyeswider,

a new one 05/04/2008 11:41:53
#60 Toom

Gore is not allowed to speak in public about his "green investment company" because to do so would violate racketeering laws by "peddling a false prospectus."

yet

Gore has "earned" $100,000,000 in the last eight years.

Equitable? Credible?

60

seanie,

05/04/2008 11:44:07
#63 You're just making stuff up now.
61

Toom,

05/04/2008 11:46:12
#31 Eyeswider "The history of climate and CO2 concentration shows that temperature changes precede CO2 changes and can not be a significant driver of climate."

Which selectively omits that that is true only in certain circumstances such as gross changes due to other factors. When there are periodic orbital changes or axis wobbles typically causing start and end of ice ages, then movement of the Earth changes the temperature significantly, and the complex factors of oceanic heat sinks, algal blooms, temperature dependent solubility of CO2 in oceans, changes in land vegetation, will mean CO2 will not immediately correlate with the temperature change during these periods of fast climate change. During relatively stable periods, eg now, it largely will immediately correlate, and that is demonstrable in laboratory conditions as well as being measurable in the natural environment. Can you point us to any credible indication or argument that it is otherwise?




62

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 11:47:41
#62 Rulesbutnotrulers

If we have "200 years of easily obtainable" "fossil" fuel available to us we should be thankful that CO2 is a benign bounteous fertilizer and that mankind has used cow dung and wood to get to the industrial age and oil to get to the nuclear age. We will invent something to rid ourselves of our reliance on oil and coal _and_ nuclear - just be glad that we have over 2 centuries to do so.

Google peak oil scam for more info. Google abiotic (a-biotic) russian oil for the real eye-opener.

I will shut my mouth when I stop laughing.



63

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 11:48:36
#64 seanie alas no.

Do you people not use google or what?
64

drew 33,

05/04/2008 11:49:57
22 Slioch,

"1.The increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increase in the amount of heat captured from the sun. This results in a LONG TERM trend. The long term trend since 1975 is (and remains) +0.019deg Celsius per year."

The 2007 global average temperature was below the the 1960=90 average and continues to trend down.
"The University of East Anglia's Hadley Centre, predicted that, although 2008 would be cooler than some recent years, it would still be one of the 10 hottest years in history, and that any cooling would only "mask the underlying warming trend".
Seven weeks later it is clear that the cooling has gone much further than that, according better with the predictions of that growing body of scientists who argue that climate change is caused less by CO2 emissions than by magnetic activity on the Sun. They point to the abnormally low present sunspot level, of a type associated with severe cooling in the past, such as in the Little Ice Age between the 17th and early 19th centuries"
65

seanie,

05/04/2008 11:51:55
#67 I do use Google.

But I'm sane enough not to believe everything I find.
66

eyeswider,

yeah right 05/04/2008 11:55:33
#65 Toom

CO2 has been much higher, for much longer, many times before and coral reefs are still here. If they are a fragility indicator then we have nothing to worry about.



67

seanie,

05/04/2008 11:55:37
2007 was not below the 1960-90 average. It was the eighth warmest since records began.
68

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 12:00:53
61. Eyes:

The infamous Oregon Petition was a phony. It was formatted to appear as a facsimile of the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences. It was in fact published by two denialist 'Institutes' funded by Exxon. Few of the people that signed it had a background in climate science, the only criterion was to be a college graduate .

Regarding your link: I said it was a link to a blog, not to a blog site. Your link is to a blog on the ABC News site.
69

drew 33,

05/04/2008 12:04:28
71seanie
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUT3.html
70

seanie,

05/04/2008 12:07:11
Try reading what the graphs are.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

"The year 2007 was eighth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2001."

"The 1990s were the warmest complete decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546°C above the 1961-90 mean. Twelve of the thirteen warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past thirteen years (1995-2007). The only year in the last thirteen not among the warmest twelve is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). The period 2001-2007 is 0.21°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade."

See that last bit?

"The period 2001-2007 is 0.21°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade."



71

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 12:11:19
#59 11+failed referred to,

"nor do I think would anyone claim to be able to make forecasts of MONTHLY global temperatures"
It is annual changes that are being discussed not monthly."

You asked in #22 "And the fall in temperature of 0.75C between J07 and J08 was forecast where?". In other words you were asking about the difference in two global MONTHLY figures, Jan 07 and Jan 08. The ANNUAL difference between 2007 and 2008 isn't known yet (I'll leave you to work out why not).

You previously (in #20) stated, "I don't recall any predictions of a fall in global temperature of 0.6C to 0.75C for 2006-7." You were there referring to an annual change, but your implication that there had been such a fall was completely false. The annual global temperature anomalies (NASA GISS) for for 2006 and 2007 were:

2006 +0.65C
2007 *0.73C

- which is an INCREASE of 0.08C from 2006 to 2007. 2007 was the second warmest year (after 2005) ever recorded (since 1880) in the NASA GISS compilation.
72

Toom,

05/04/2008 12:12:24
#63 Eyeswider
Gore is indeed not exempt from compliance with the standard financial regulations
on how investments may be presented and marketed. His investment company is compliant and registered with the Financial Services Authority.

However, the fact that he also promotes a certains views and evidence of global warming is not, per se, evidence that global warming is not occurring, nor is the fact that he and others are making money from promoting their ideas.
73

eyeswider,

watching F1 qualifying 05/04/2008 12:23:12
#69 dude - seanie

Believe NASA?


"Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity
and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets"

Ching-Cheh Hung
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330

The main paper (pdf) is linked to at the bottom of the page.


The paper's release is remarkable for several reasons.

Its findings run counter to currently accepted fantasies.

It shows a wonderfully precise fit between solar events and planetary positions - which is _always_ what is objected to by scientists as "like astrology" so has been dismissed many times before even though Newton, Keppler and Brahe(amongst many others reaching back into the mists of time - because it is vital to agriculture) all worked on similar hypothesis and now here it is "with a confidence level of nearly 4 standard deviations" (meaning: extremely unlikely to be disproved).

It adds weight to the posited upcoming (or already here) cooling.

It was about time the boys with the biggest computers caught up.

Alternatively - for those of us that believe there are "too many people" for "dwindling resources" who continue to "pollute" the planet with plant food -

Move on citizen. Nothing to see here.


74

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 12:26:02
#68 drew 33, claimed,

"The 2007 global average temperature was below the 1960=90 average and continues to trend down."

That is not true, or anywhere near true. Seanie has dealt with this misunderstanding.

Come back to us if you are still confused, otherwise I will assume you accept the data linked to by Seanie. data.
75

eyeswider,

during adverts 05/04/2008 12:27:16

Al Gore tells porkies. Hold the front page.
76

Toom,

05/04/2008 12:36:27
#70 Eyeswider "CO2 has been much higher, for much longer, many times before and coral reefs are still here. If they are a fragility indicator then we have nothing to worry about."

Which is indeed true and fully accounted for. Billions of coral larvae are produced at each spawning and if coral is dying of in one area will migrate and establish in a relatively more temperate zone.

But how is that relevant to what I said in #65 to which you direct your comments? The fact cited by you of periods where CO2 does not correlate with temperature, are well known and explainable, and I have explained them. You quoted that "CO2 changes can not be a significant driver of climate." follows from this. That is simply not so.

Let me state again - During relatively stable periods, eg now, it (CO2 levels and temperature) largely will immediately correlate, and that is demonstrable in laboratory conditions as well as being measurable in the natural environment. Can you point us to any credible indication or argument that it is otherwise?

A total non sequitur regarding coral reefs is not a credible indication or argument.

77

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 12:38:32
77. eyes:

The paper you cite appears to have nothing to do with global warming or cooling. What is your point?
78

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 12:40:11
#80 Toom - would you peer review a paper for me please?

Ignore for just a while its provenance:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ClimateChange_Nicol.pdf


and have a good look at the science within please.
79

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 12:40:51
#77 eyeswider

The Ching-Cheh Hung paper looks like an interesting paper, and is published by NASA, so should be taken seriously.
It makes NO reference or inference (as far as I see) to climate change on Earth or elsewhere.
80

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 12:53:21

# Slioch, fred - you have been following (or remember) my "lunacy" that planetary (not just ours) climate is controlled by the movement of those very planets haven't you?

This goes a looooong way toward that. They have missed some vital aspects but I am shocked(delighted) that it has seen the light of day.



CO2 again.
probably debunked (-;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

81

seanie,

05/04/2008 12:55:53
Ahhh....I see.



Nurse! The medication!
82

Neil,

Glasgow 05/04/2008 12:56:34
Fred 53
"48. Everyone knows that the 'Oregon Petition' was phony"

Everyone knows that Fred is totally dishonest as is virtually everybody with the eco-Nazi agenda.

I do not wholly exclude the possibility that somebody on the "environmentalist" side here will come on & dissociate themselves from such total barefaced lies, in which case the possibility of that particular person being honest cannot be excluded. Beyond that the others merely prove that every word from them must be treated as lying eco-Nazi slogans rather than any form of honest debate.
83

seanie,

05/04/2008 12:58:40
We'll need the straitjackets too!
84

eyeswider,

lol 05/04/2008 13:02:33


http://www.redstate.com/stories/miscellanea/when_ten_years_is_not_a_trend

Whats happening (Jenson Button is even in final qualifying!)
85

seanie,

05/04/2008 13:03:57
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

"A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade."
86

seanie,

05/04/2008 13:04:22
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/dept/0108_globaltemp.htm

"To determine if warming has recently stopped, consider the data from the past eight years, from 2000 to 2007. This is a more meaningful comparison than 1998 to 2007, as 1998 temperatures were anomalously high as a result of the "El Niño of the century" (pdf), a natural cyclical event that produced an enormous temperature spike relative to surrounding years. Choosing an El Niño year as that start of the dataset would amount to rather egregious cherry picking (though both GISS temp and HadCRU would still show a warming trend over the decade)."

"Over the past eight years, Earth has warmed 0.025 degrees C per year according to GISS, and 0.014 degrees C per year according to HadCRU, so GISS shows slightly faster warming than over the long-term trend of 0.018 degrees C per year, and HadCRU shows warming slightly slower."
87

seanie,

05/04/2008 13:05:11
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

"It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a).

"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif
88

seanie,

05/04/2008 13:05:37
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

"The period 2001-2007 is 0.21°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade."
89

seanie,

05/04/2008 13:05:51
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/hansen-t2.jpg

Look at the red line. Since 1998 the global five year mean temperature has continued to rise.
90

seanie,

05/04/2008 13:06:24
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/images/pr20070104.gif

Look at the blue line. That's the running mean.

Did it continue to rise after 1998?

Why yes. Yes it did.
91

seanie,

05/04/2008 13:07:07
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/gisscru.jpg

That's the HadCRU and GISS graphs ovelaid.

Both show that the global mean continued to rise after 1998.
92

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 13:08:48
77 and 84 prove beyond all doubt that eyeswider knows something about astrology and nothing about science.
93

seanie,

05/04/2008 13:13:58
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.csv

That's the HadCRU temperature data. It shows 1998 as the peak individual year. But look at the second column - the running mean. Since 1998 the average global temperature has risen significantly.
94

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 13:18:23
86. Accuses me of being dishonest about the Oregon Petition.

Among the signatories of this notorious document are the following:

"Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."

plus numerous duplicate entries.

Case proved.
95

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 13:29:39
#84 eyeswider

There is nothing lunatic (a suitable adjective) in hypothesising that the gravitational effects of the planets might influence the sun, or, (since obviously the sun influences the climate on Earth), that the positions of the planets might thereby have some impact on the climate on Earth.

Your mistake is to believe, in the absence of evidence, that that planetary influence is strong, whilst maintaining that the climatic influence of CO2, for which evidence abounds, is weak or non-existent.

From that scenario it could be concluded that humans had no influence on climate. That is what you want to believe, and that is why you believe it, but your belief is not evidence based.

The above scenario would also result in a political climate in which the companies producing fossil fuels could continue to expand and flourish: that is why they pay various organisations large amounts of money to mislead the public with denial about CO2 and false leads in other directions.
96

Neil,

Glasgow 05/04/2008 13:59:56
98 Says the Oregon Petition was faked purely on the grounds that some eco-fascist sent in a signature under the name Geri Halliwell (the other signatures proved genuine theough Fred clearly also believes that the English Football Association doesn't exist because Austin Healey is obviously a fake name).

What it actually proves is that the designers of the petition don't follow the Spice Girls &, yet again, that eco-fascists have absolutely no problem with fakery.

It is conceivable "Fred Bloggs" is not a fake name. If not it follows that either this site you are reading does not exist or that "Fred" & his compatriots are wholly corrupt lying eco-Nazis.

Case proved.

The eco-Nazis have murdered more people than Hitler as Fred knows - deny that Fred if you can.

97

Toom,

05/04/2008 14:09:11
#82 Eyeswider.

My initial view is that the paper seems largely based on theory and calculation, with little mention of measurement, experiment or observation. Graphs and lists of data are presented without reference to sources. This does not in any way, per se, invalidate it as a valid theoretical paper, but without a considerable component of measurement, experiment and observation, it would be difficult to regard it as an accurate and relevant predictor of what happens in the complex natural environment. One immediate point is that whilst concentrating only on CO2, there are statements and assumptions on general relevance to the totality of the greenhouse effect. For instance, even slight effects of CO2 in increasing air temperature, would, in the presence of water sources, increase water vapour levels. He acknowledges that water vapour is 'a much more "aggressive" greenhouse gas', yet makes minimal oblique reference and unsubstantiated suppositions in regard to it.

Whatever he concludes from his complex calculation on how CO2, sun activity, atmospheric absorption, convection, etc should work in theory, dealing with it in theoretical and mathematical isolation is not particularly persuasive.

After 40 years in research I'm aware that using physical formulae and laws you can derive much about how natural mechanisms might work, which doesn't pan out in the more complex real world, and much happens in the complex natural world that doesn't comply with the theory of the individual component parts.

His conclusions are somewhat at variance with my own conclusions as a non-partisan who has looked at the the evidence and mechanisms from my extensive scientific background.

Whilst I'm no respecter of reputations or qualifications per se, it is necessary, particularly with intenet publications, to know the context and provenance of information, and it would help to know who John Nicol is, his credentials and other work. This paper appears without any context, d
98

Toom,

05/04/2008 14:14:47
#82 Eyeswider.


...continued
This paper appears without any context, data sources or other information, and the site gives no mention of him in its main lists of members and claimed experts.
99

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 15:30:30
102. The author of the paper would appear to be:
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia,
who appears on lists of climate sceptics.
100

Toom,

05/04/2008 16:11:41
#103 I thought it might be, though it doesn't say so.
As I noted, it largely looks at the physical laws and formula for the theoretical behaviour of absorption, radiation, convection, etc, and seems to conclude that beyond certain densities, further increase in CO2 could be shown not to increase the greenhouse effect. However these are selective ideal factors with neat equations. What the paper says near the conclusions is

“No attempt has been made here to construct a model of atmospheric behaviour which relates in any way to the detailed structures of modern GCMs. The emphasis has been to try to understand the possible processes which can take place according to the well established laws of physics, beginning with the absorption of radiation by a selective gas and the subsequent, physically necessary, redistribution of that energy which may lead to increases in the temperature of the earth because of such absorption.”

That suggests, indeed states, it is an isolated theoretical model, does not relate it to natural complex climate effects or interactions, or, the big problem, come up with any other credible factor to explain current climate trends.
101

henrymanchester,

UK 05/04/2008 16:30:27
OK everyone...take a deep breath and repeat after me:

The world is not coming to an end.

There...doesn't that feel better?

(Sorry Gordon...you'll just have to find another way to charge your illegal and unfair taxes...)
102

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 16:30:46
104 Toom:

The paper seems to be another attempt to claim that saturation of the IR absorption bands of CO2 means that adding more cannot increase warming. However, this is not true, e.g. see:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
103

,

05/04/2008 16:35:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
104

,

05/04/2008 16:47:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
105

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 05/04/2008 17:35:38
The label "greenhouse gases" is tied to the fundamental property of radiative forcing: I know this is much too complicated a term for global warming sceptics, but please surf it and try and understand the science. It's quite simple: there is a natural rate at which heat is able to pass through each gas. This rate differs for different gases. "Greenhouse gases" are those gases through which heat passes more slowly than through air, and for some of these gases this retardation is extreme. Thus if we keep on adding more and more greenhouse gases to our atmosphere, we have to be preventing the rate at which heat can move through it to outer space. And we can measure this change in a laboratory. If the heat is moving more slowly away from the planet, it has to heat up. Read the article again - all of it, this time, not just the first paragraph! The connection between greenhouse gases and global warming is not wishful thinking, It's hard physics, backed by experiemtns with real results. The anti-global warming lobby are scientific illiterates. Which governments are to blame for that?
106

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 05/04/2008 17:45:26
1) Take a very long, well-insulated plastic tube.
2) Place an electric heating filament in one end and seal this end tightly with an opaque, heavily insulated lid.
3) Seal the other end with a thin transparent gastight membrane.
4) Drill a hole and put in a gastight valve that can be opened and shut.
5) Fill the tube with carbon dioxide gas.
6) Switch on the electrical heating element and dissipate a certain amount of power in a given time.
7) Measure the rate at which the heat leaves the other end of the tube.
8) Repeat the experiment for nitrogen, oxygen, methane, argon, chlorofluorocarbons etc.
9) Think. Draw the necessary conclusions.
10) Stop blethering and do something.
107

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 17:45:39
#101 Toom

Thanks for that - sorry I wasn't here earlier I have two toddlers that need exercise, regularly.

Great analysis.

The Australians are pushing the envelope right now (-;
Showing the Americans their heels.

Thanks again.

108

Richardo,

Iowa, USA 05/04/2008 17:53:52
Short and incomplete summary of factors alleged to be influencing climate:

periodic orbital changes
axis wobbles
[other?] movement of the earth
oceanic heat sinks
algal blooms
solubility of CO2 in oceans
release of CO2 from oceans on temperature rise
changes in land vegetation
human CO2 production
animal methane
sunspots
sun activity cycles
influence of planets on sun
influence of sun on earth
cooling of earth's core

On top of this, we have an ability to measure individual natural phenomena but climate modeling software that is of unknown or highly doubtful accuracy and unknown ability to predict trends.

People who take note of this complexity and require rigorous science proof that is something more than a correlation between this or that data pair are "deniers." If they are paid as consultants to try to shed some light on the issue, they are morally corrupt. Cheerleaders for AGW can take money to advance the theorem of AGW and THAT becomes holy writ.

One the case had been made for AGW, everyone knows that the way we handle things in the Western scientific tradition is to close off debate. The more complex the problem and the more expensive the putative "solution" the quicker alternative views must be shut down.

THEY, the Cheerleaders, the True Ones, are able to pierce the above complexity and, voila, it turns out that human CO2 production is the culprit, which we must now contort ours lives and economies to reduce.

Sign me up!
109

eyeswider,

hmmm 05/04/2008 17:56:18
I just cannot reconcile high CO2 levels with runaway(or any, much) warming. It didn't happen in the past so why now?

If we were to get to 1200ppmv, as it has been in the past, why would the source of the CO2, or its' speed of production, make any difference? (To OLR and other mechanisms for cooling or whatever)

I can't understand things such as "5) Fill the tube with carbon dioxide gas." in some arguments. Even a non-scientist like me realizes I would be dead if the atmosphere was 100% CO2 rather than @0.04%(even if it is rising)


110

yoric,

05/04/2008 17:56:30
"Since records began"
I love that phrase.
The Earth is millions of years old, weather records go back 100 years.
Global warming is based on fact then?
111

corran,

hebrides 05/04/2008 18:05:46
Check this out.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/6727/?ck=1
112

seanie,

05/04/2008 18:08:07
Fact, evidence and science.

You can stick your head in the sand but reality's going to bite you on the behouchie.

Global warming is real.
113

Richardo,

Iowa, USA 05/04/2008 18:38:36
112 -- "rigorous scientific proof"

-- "Once the case"
114

Richardo,

Iowa, USA 05/04/2008 18:42:25
116 -- Seanie, sometimes there's global warming and sometimes global cooling. The question is, "What causes this?"
115

seanie,

05/04/2008 18:53:44
The current warming trend, about 0.20°C per decade, is being caused by an increase in CO2, due to human activity. If we stabilise CO2 levels at around 450ppm we may get away with no more than a 2°C rise in global temperatures. But the way things are going we're not going to make that target. As we go beyond it the dangers of feedback mechanisms amplifying the trend increase. And over such a short timescale really large changes would effectively mean a mass extiction event.
116

Hadrian,

Tillicoultry 05/04/2008 18:54:58
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=
Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-
23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

US Senate Report. 400 named scientists dont support global warming, its worth a read.
117

seanie,

05/04/2008 18:58:25
No it's not. It's twaddle.
118

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 20:34:16
#120 Hadrian

The updated one with links to articles and papers:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

in here it would be best to be quoting the climate related scientists on that list as the police don't like "out of their field" it invalidates an opinion quicker than a Clinton can misspeak.
119

Brute,

Oregon, USA 05/04/2008 20:46:35
Well, one slipped through.

A story about a bit of a cooling trend.

One side says "See it proves Global Warming is a hoax!"

The other side says "Ignore the evidence, its an anomaly."

For most people involved in the Global Warming discussion, the argument is political or faith based, not scientific. Science is the justification for what they want the world to look like politically.

Anytime you see someone use a local weather phenomenon to justify their position (this applies to both sides of the debate by the way) you are looking at a dishonest argument.

So it turns into a bitter name calling ruckus rather than a discussion.

All I can say is "Thank God for Global Warming", It gets kinda cold here.
120

eyeswider,

yep 05/04/2008 20:50:40
When it gets cold later, people will think anyone complaining of 0.17C per decade increase in global temps must have been a moron. Same as the hungry people will think when they get told their tortillas or pasta got made into fuel when we have at least a trillion barrels easily available and twice that much that would be a little harder to bring to market.

Madness is the new religion.
121

seanie,

05/04/2008 21:01:50
When it continues to get warmer, at roughly 0.2°C per decade, when do we take action?

2°C would have a huge impact but should be manageable.

But if we're heading for 800ppm plus then the games a bogey. That's mass extinction.

And the longer people delude themselves and others about AGW, the more likely we'll be facing catastrophic climate change.

Well maybe not us.

Our Grandchildren yes, but who cares about that?
122

Hadrian,

Tillicoultry 05/04/2008 21:14:36
122 eyeswider
Thanks for the link. This whole thing reminds me of "Chicken Little" (the kids story, not the movie).
We dont seem to know enough to know if we are looking at the right question ,never mind the right answer.
Plenty of witch doctors and chicken entrails. And I certainly dont trust politicians when they are so obviously on the make............
123

Paul David,

Australia 05/04/2008 21:26:49
Note that this story, and the original BBC story, are incorrect. The third paragraph is wrong: "La Niña's influence on the world means average global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory." Fact is that 11 of the past 12 years are the warmest on record. It is just that none since 1998 were hotter than 1998 (hottest on record) but all the subsequent years are hotter in comparison to the long-term record. Note that BBC has corrected its story, particularly paragraph 3, deleting the initial paragraph and now having this: "But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases." Check the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm


124

seanie,

05/04/2008 21:36:45
It's not witch doctors and chicken entrails, it's facts and evidence and science.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Not the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect but nevertheless significant. And we've increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to levels unprecedented since there were dinosaurs.

"We dont seem to know enough to know if we are looking at the right question ,never mind the right answer."

What's that even suppossed to mean?

We have the recorded fact of increased temperatures.

We have the recorded fact of increased CO2.

We have the indisputible fact that CO2 in the atmosphere enhances temperatures.

If the increased CO2 in our atmosphere isn't causing the increase in temperature (because it certainly should be) then please explain where that excess energy is going.

And then explain why the temperature has in fact increased as expected given the increase in CO2.
125

seanie,

05/04/2008 21:51:28
We have an observed phenomenon to explain; a comparatively rapid global increase in temperature.

That pattern doesn't correlate with the known natural influences on climate but does correlate with the increase in a greenhouse gas due to human activity.

Since there is considerable scientific consensus on that skeptics have to do two things to really make a difference.

First explain what is causing the increase in temperature. And secondly explain why the huge anthropogenic increase in CO2 isn't contributing to it.

Because it bloody should be.
126

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta; . CA.....a place in the Sun 05/04/2008 22:23:45
129
seanie,
05/04/2008 21:51:28
--------------------------------

Hey Dude ,

Don't waste Ur time asking questions based on logic, in these threads.

U will not get a reply , Why, because 95% of the posters are old farts, with fossilizes mind sets.

And they don't understand what logic is .

But if u want responses, go to a thread, where mention is made of the SNP and its fanatical supports .

U will be flooded with responses . all in parrot like fashion, just like the Chinese agents who work for the communist CCP/PLA

Have a nice day dude.

GC

Remember dude, human activity is 99% poisonous, (biologically and mentally).

Happy 4th. July day, and Haggis day

GC

127

Hadrian,

Tillicoultry 05/04/2008 22:44:41
129 seanie, hi there.
Been following this story since the early 60's
Seen all the theories come and go.
co2 over 20kyears rises first then temp rises
co2 over 1 million years rises AFTER the temp rises.Depends how you select your data the use it.
Same with a lot of this stuff. I aint a scientist but I read alot.
As for 130 him and logic (some say brains) are strangers.
Chou
128

seanie,

05/04/2008 23:25:13
This isn't complex. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It amplifies temperature. We know that, going back thousands of years, CO2 levels correlate very closely with temperature. We know that past variations in temperature have not been driven by CO2 but that CO2 levels and assosciated feedbacks have had huge effects on temperature.

And we know of previous extinction events associated with temperature changes of around 6°C.

A 2°C rise over the next century would be bad news. But we're not even going to manage that because CO2 emissions are not being cut. We're looking at 550ppm at minimum, maybe 800-1000ppm.

That's catastrophic. It doesn't mean the end of life on earth. But it means the end of life on earth as we know it.
129

seanie,

05/04/2008 23:59:19
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Look at the correlation between CO2 and temperature. CO2 hasn't driven past temperature changes but it's been a major feedback amplifying temperature.

Look at CO2 recently.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

It's off the scale as far as human history is concerned. We're talking about levels that haven't existed for millions of years. And a potential temperature change over decades and centuries instead of millenia. That's catastrophic.
130

Richardo,

Iowa, USA 06/04/2008 00:19:10
People who make ad hominem attacks on critics of anthropogenic global warming don't contribute much to the debate. The issue of whose money funds what conclusion just doesn't resolve anything. Witness the same spotlight shined on global warming advocates:

"The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate
and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio.
Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million
that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle."

-- A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking. Global Warming Alarmism. Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle:
A Challenge to Journalists who Cover Global Warming

United States Senator James Inhofe, Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Floor Speech Delivered Monday September 25, 2006
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e


As for a particular instance of anthropogenic (I presume) global warming (possible) bias consider "NASA scientist and alarmist" James Hansen:

"The “60 Minutes” segment made no mention of Hansen’s partisan ties to former Democrat Vice
President Al Gore or Hansen’s receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing
Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen’s subsequent
endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004."

-- Id.

If anyone knows of a scientist who's independently wealthy and doing climate research in his basement, by all means let's start with his conclusions. Since this gold standard of objectivity is the stuff of fantasy, could we get on with examining the data, analysis, and conclusions of the baser, more corrupt, venal, and partisan hacks and draw our conclusions on the merits of the science?

Just skip the hyperventilating about "Big Oil." Ple
131

Richardo,

Iowa, USA 06/04/2008 00:36:40
132 -- Seanie, I very much doubt that "we know" all the things you say "we know." Your predictions of future CO2 concentrations are just Chicken Little numbers pulled out of the air. 800ppm? Why not 8,000?

We do know there was a medieval warming period but GW zealots don't WANT to know about that.

"The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth’s climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

"Climate alarmists have been attempting to erase the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period from the Earth’s climate history for at least a decade. David Deming, an assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma’s College of Geosciences, can testify first hand about this effort. Dr. Deming was welcomed into the close-knit group of global warming believers after he published a paper in 1995 that noted some warming in the 20th century. Deming says he was subsequently contacted by a prominent global warming alarmist and told point blank 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' When the 'Hockey Stick' first appeared in 1998, it did just that." Same source as in #134.

And you think we know stuff from thousands of years ago?
132

eyeswider,

here and now 06/04/2008 00:42:28
#134/5 :-0

I usually just take liberties in here and have a few laughs as I learned pretty fast that there are some people with agendas that are all over you like a rash if you dare raise your head above the parapet and give an opinion on what is seriously, and in the true meanings of the words, not "settled" or "science". All else is jam.

I just read this slapping of a troll claiming to have a PhD:

Gary Gulrud
"Dr. Astroturf, sir, would you dispute Hottel’s measure of the emissivity==absorptivity of C02(300ppm or 3000) at STP of 15micron radiation at 9*10^-4? Would you disagree that those of asphalt are approximately 1000 times greater? Would you dispute UAH MSU data indicating no significant lower lattitude high tropospheric warming, no cooling of the stratosphere and Willis’ recent report of no ocean warming this milennia to 3000m? If not then perhaps we can give you a pass...."


http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/gore-to-throw-insults-on-60-minutes-time-to-unload-on-cbs/



133

eyeswider,

sleepwalking 06/04/2008 00:48:17
The main problem I have is that CO2 is being made out as a "bad" guy in this story and we don't know enough about its "bad" effects to be labeling it so. We know plenty about the "good" effects. So many, and so much that it makes CO2 look like an ultimate "good" guy. It is, after all the ultimate target for taxation in these dark days. The rest of the associated carp, like peer review(yeah yeah - it's the best system we have yeah sure pull the other one. Thats like saying a consensus is only a step away from a law) and the "there are too many people" position and "we're using up all the stuff" is just that, associated. And carp.

The ice proxy(record) as used to measure historic, atmospheric CO2 may be very, very inaccurate because cold liquid water(present in ice, even at pressure) absolutely adores CO2 - 30x, up to 70x more than the affinity it has with either Nitrogen or Oxygen - and those bubbles that we use to measure past CO2 levels undergo explosive decompression when the cores containing them are brought to the surface to be examined.

134

little tree,

texas 06/04/2008 04:24:47
Folks, the real question is whether you prefer global cooling or warming. There is no other choice. Cooling leads to ice ages and immense destruction of species as exhibited by the fossil record. Warming leads to lush growth of flora and fauna as also exhibited by the fossil record. You have been fooled with the false premise that warming is bad.
135

mam-bear-pig,

ohio, USA 06/04/2008 05:14:34
it is my understanding that warming comes BEFORE a rise in co2 so the co2 argument is utter foolishness. if people think we miniscule humans can actually affect the earth in a detrimetal manner just by being here, then they need to drink the jim jones kool-aid and do the world a favor. as to the others who think "fossil"fuels are finite, well lots of scientists believe this stuff is made deep in the earth and not by the decay of dead animals, so if thats the case than oil is in infinate supply, the only thing that stops us from getting it is the enviro nuts.
136

mam-bear-pig,

ohio 06/04/2008 05:23:47
oh by the way, the biggest "green house " agent is water vapor which i do believe the earth itself produces 24/7/365...you global warming subjects need to actually learn how things work. but according to you guys this big gigantic earth that has been here for what, 4 Billion years, can't withstand the evil plastic bags we make..you arrogant bas!%&ds!
137

eyeswider,

06/04/2008 10:17:54

CO2:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.1276.pdf



138

eyeswider,

yep 06/04/2008 10:31:46
The following is an excerpt from A Peer Reviewed paper by James A. Peden.

It sums up approximately how much CO2 GW forcing we can expect from CO2.

"the entire atmosphere isn't composed of CO2. In fact the current concentration in the atmosphere is only about 380 parts per million. It''s what we call a "trace gas". So how much heat can our trace amounts of CO2 actually absorb? The math is simple: 8% ( or .08 ) x 380 PPM ( .000380 ) = .0000304, or about thirty millionths of the radiated heat.

Bear in mind, that's the maximum permissible absorption by all of the CO2 presently in our atmosphere. Man's percentage contribution is currently at about 3% of that. Now, let''s see what the "man-made" contribution ( 3% of the total ) is. Again, multiply .0000304 x .03 = .000000912 . Let''s round that up to the nearest single number and just say,

Man-made CO2 cannot physically absorb more than one-millionth
of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere.

This is why warm-mongers never talk numbers. Most reliable sources place mans' contribution from a high of 7% to 1% of the total CO2 in any given year.
Do you think that halving this number at the cost of trillions of dollars it will cost to adapt/retrofit existing facilities is worth it? Most of the technology to trap CO2 is untested or doesn't currently exist. Some of them I've seen would produce more CO2 in manufacture/operation then they can capture.



139

Rabbit63,

Perth, Australia. 06/04/2008 10:55:59
I can't believe I read every single post.

I think you are all bums and nobody has a clue WTF is going on. I sure as hell don't. But I do know there are far worse things of far more immediate danger to the health of our species at least. The massive spread of so called Depleted Uranium in aerosolised form to blow all around the world which has been going on since the USA in particular began using their waste Uranium as a weapon. A weapon which is in some ways more insidiously dangerous than full scale Nuclear Weapons which are yet of far smaller quantities in regards to the amount of radioactive material released.

We are many of us going to be dead pretty soon any way from other much more pressing reasons than the inevitable evolution of the climate on this complex lump of rock and debris hurtling through space whilst locked in another complex dance with other lumps of rocks, gas and minerals and a big electric furnace in the middle. Our species with all its self worshiping achievements is a flea on the dog's back no more. We are our own worst enemy and we will stuff ourselves up long before we stuff up the planet I'll wager.
140

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 06/04/2008 11:46:04
#142 eyeswider

No wonder you are so confused if you rely on articles such as that by James A. Peden, which I don't believe could have been peer-reviewed (unless it was in some spoof journal like "Energy and Environment").

I'll just pick up on one of his bits of misleading nonsense. He states, "Bear in mind, that's the maximum permissible absorption by all of the CO2 presently in our atmosphere. Man's percentage contribution is currently at about 3% of that."

That is not true. The pre-industrial concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280ppmv. It is now about 385ppmv. That is an increase of 100 - (385/280*100) = c.37%.

3% is not 37%. That is the level of honesty and accuracy in the garbage sites that you keep linking to. I'm not going to bother to address his other misleading points.

Of all the persons I have "met" during my time responding to these climate change blogs you, Eyeswide, appear to be the most mislead. It is obvious that you care about these issues and spend a lot of time reading and thinking about them - you are not a knee-jerk denialist refusing even to contemplate the issues. But your lack of scientific ability makes you an easy victim of this kind of (I assume) deliberately misleading stuff: it comes to the conclusion you want to hear, so you believe it. These guys, Eyeswide, they just drink down your blood like wine.
141

Neil,

Glasgow 06/04/2008 12:46:30
Seanie says
"The current warming trend, about 0.20°C per decade....If we stabilise CO2 levels at around 450ppm we may get away with no more than a 2°C rise in global temperatures. But the way things are going we're not going to make that target."

A small amount of arithmetic will show that, in a cantury, if this claim were truthful than 2 C is exactly what we would achieve without doing anything.

In fact Seanie's claim is unsurprisingly, in no way truthful. The "official" claim (dubious because it takes little account of the urban heating effect) is that we increased 0.6 C over the 20th C ie 0.06 C a decade & the fact is that over the last decade it has got cooler.

To put the tin hat on it 2 C warmer is no warmer than it was during the late Roman warm period & cooler than 5,000 years ago.

The entire "environmentalist" movement is based on propagating such fraudulent scares.
142

seanie,

06/04/2008 13:10:47
It has not got cooler over the last decade. The running average has increased.

"The period 2001-2007 is 0.21°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade."
143

seanie,

06/04/2008 13:14:08
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

"A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade."
144

Lady of Shallot,

cloud cuckoo land 06/04/2008 14:23:52

A new film coming out about AGW, doubtless providing more fuel for all the deniers.

http://11thhouraction.com/seethefilm
145

Lord Reptor,

Offshore, Cascadia 06/04/2008 15:00:17
@Rabbit63 - Bingo. Give the man a home-grown, organic cigar.

When I hear Al Gore open the horrible mass of spermaceti he calls a head up and trash-talk the exhaust pipes on one of those F-18 thingys our government is so hot to buy from the Yanks and help them kill people with, then I might take his environmental idealism seriously.

Maybe it's getting warmer. Maybe not. If there's a big change, we'll have to (gasp) adapt and migrate.

My God, people might die! Quick, unscrew your lightbulbs!

Works great for me. It's cold on my little rock a lot of the year. If my forests change species some, well, it'll look neat Boy, you want manmade environmental change? Try the logging industry out here. Don't see too much furore about that in the Sun God Placator Party under High Dorksmen Gates and Gore.

Rabbit, you're the only one on here so far who seems to realize that the average war is a teeny bit more polluting than my nice Edison bulbs.

PS - just to throw copier toner on the fire - I hear there was an earthquake just before that ice shelf collapsed.

And no, dear PTB, I don't want your plastic-covered, four-pound, mercury-laden, metal-wasting, unreliable, misdesigned, and dangerous lightbulbs in or even near my house. Quit making war and we'll talk.

Pretty sure that dinosaurs farted big farts and that you all do too,
Lord Reptor.
146

Hickory,

US 06/04/2008 16:16:26
Well now, it would be a tree hugger's dream if we were going into another ice age. They could march out their leftie academic freeloaders and preach the up and coming doom. Of course, they could apply for government grants to discuss it further. A scam is a scam and we are being scammed! I can hear it now, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Give me money and I will save you." And oh yes, "We are sorry we were wrong about global warming but we are right this time."
They would be calling for us to increase CO2 to increase warming. It never ends. As I said, we are being scammed. Al Gore.... >$100M worth.
147

hot air,

06/04/2008 16:24:36
The more general problem is human caused destruction or deterioration of many aspects of the biosphere. The general solution is to alter our behavior and technology and numbers so that we function viably in both the shorter and longer term. We've played Russian roulette with nuclear holocaust, have fished out a lot of the oceans, and are depleting aquifers like there's no tomorrow. Human folly knows no bounds, as we see with the enthusiastic blind plunge by big business and science into irrevocable GMO. - etc. One of the key impediments to significant and sensible cultural change is a cultural movement away from general common sense toward specialized expertise. Augmenting this disastrous trend is a mainstream media that provides a seemingly salivating-for-titillation mass audience with infinite trivia.

Clean air, clean technology, clean water, wholesome food, and repudiating a war-and-greed reliant economic order are elements of sanity. A determined attempt to achieve reduced reliance on carbon based energy production offers many potential benefits.
148

Lord of All Mordor,

Contemplating The Nokia River. 06/04/2008 20:29:11
I sit here with several things in front of me.

The first is a set of differential equations which I was given by a colleague. They were derived in the 1920s by Arthur Milne. They are, apparently, the basis for most - if not the greatest majority - of the climate modelling used today. However, you should look at the equations. They assume AN INFINITELY THICK atmosphere. Now it is not rocket science to realise that the atmosphere is not infinitely thick.

The second is some material by Mikos Zagoni, who WAS a fearsome proponent of the Kyoto Agreement. He was also one of the most strong of the global warming advocates. He, in combination with Ferenc Miskolczi has done a huge amount of work on the boundary conditions set by Milne, but with conditions which reflect the real non-infinite atmosphere.

The result is a model that reflects the changing of the world's atmosphere more accurately. The paper has been peer-reviewed in Hungary and was supported by material published in last year's Journal of Geophysical Research by Steven Swartz of Brookhaven National Labs.

Clearly, if these equations are the basis of the climate models in use, then they (any models which use them) are seriously flawed and need to be re-examined throughly.

Thirdly, a quotation from a local paper which mentions "Even the IPCC head Dr. Rajendra Pachauri has noticed the disconnect and acknowledged we have to look and see if natural forces were somehow countering greenhouse warming."

Fourthly, a study of the stations being used to record temperatures for the various studies on global warming.

this official USHCN climate station of record (COOP ID #22659) in Douglas Arizona on their cross country trip this winter. As is typical with many USHCN stations using an MMTS instrument, cable laying issues put the sensor closer to the building. In this case the sensor is over gravel and only 11 feet from the south (sun facing) wall of the Douglas Fire Department.


“…the MMTS was 11 fe
149

Lord of All Mordor,

06/04/2008 20:39:10
this official USHCN climate station of record (COOP ID #22659) in Douglas Arizona on their cross country trip this winter. As is typical with many USHCN stations using an MMTS instrument, cable laying issues put the sensor closer to the building. In this case the sensor is over gravel and only 11 feet from the south
“…the MMTS was 11 feet to the south of a one-plus story stucco building, 9 feet from a concrete sidewalk to the south, 21 feet from a very wide two-lane asphalt street (10th St.), 36 feet from the Dolores Avenue Sidewalk. Additionally, the MMTS was positioned about 11 feet from the east and west from two concrete walkways providing access to the building from 10th street. The MMTS was 9 feet to the east of an estimated 25-foot tall Mesquite tree whose crown reached the area immediately overhead the MMTS. [The person interviewed] indicated that the tree had been pruned recently. The landscaping under the MMTS was lighted-colored gravel.”

I suspect we will find many more of the official stations give flawed readings.

I wonder how many years of cooling it will take before the pickers of statistics to suit themselves will admit they are wrong. Under how many feet of snow and after how many years will it take truthsleuth, fred bloggs and slioch to be persuaded that natural factors may well be so important they cannot be ignored ?

I seem to remember, in my chemistry classes at university, being told that CO2 quantities needed to increase logarithmically to provide a consistent rate of increase in global temperatures. However, it was so long ago.


150

Lord of All Mordor,

Contemplating the Nokia River 06/04/2008 21:06:25
Also I forgot.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

Readers may wish a Russian analysis of the situation. This is the English version - virtually the same as the Russian version.

I look forward to comments from readers in Scotland.
151

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 06/04/2008 21:16:13
#153 Lord of All Mordor

"natural factors may well be so important they cannot be ignored"

Of course natural factors are important. They are not ignored.

The natural greenhouse effect (from water vapour, natural CO2, natural methane and nitrous oxide) maintains the global surface temperature at about 33deg Celsius warmer than it would be otherwise. The human induced increase in global average temperature is currently less than 1deg Celsius. That is caused by increases in CO2, methane and nitrous oxide plus some CFCs.

The need is to keep the human contribution below about 2C, otherwise problems such as sea level rise, changing agriculture, mass human migrations, mass extinctions, become serious.

As for "I wonder how many years of cooling it will take before the pickers of statistics to suit themselves will admit they are wrong." Leaving aside your misunderstanding of statistics, if changes in the sun (or some other factor) cause cooling in the near future then in some ways that would be of benefit, but only if intelligently appraised. Tamino has provided a rigorous mathematical test for such a possibility, which is well worth a careful study, here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/
152

Lord of All Mordor,

Contemplating The Nokia River. 06/04/2008 21:24:40
I am aware of the various factors which affect the earth's climate - and have been for very many years including the various natural cyles that have ability to affect the earth.

As for intelligent appraisal of ALL factors, that is the very thing far too many people are determined to avoid.

Considering I work with statistics, some of which are exceedingly complex every day I shall ignore that particular comment ........


153

Lord of All Mordor,

Contemplating The Nokia River. 06/04/2008 21:32:29
I note for example that you avoid any analysis of the possibility that the differential equations in use may be flawed.

I note you also avoid discussing the possibility that the weather stations gathering data may be compromised by their locations.

Or even the comment by the head of the IPCC. I always doubt those who resort to disputing others' abilities or understanding at an early stage. You seem particularly adept - if this thread is anything to go by.

I also wait to see your response to the work done in the Russian Academy of Sciences (Oleg Sorokhtin)
154

Lord of All Mordor,

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/ 06/04/2008 21:46:15
I have read Tamino's paper and, like a great number of papers I have read on the subject, he has covered his bases very neatly. It is possible to dispute his figures by which certain events ought to occur.

There is a very good reason why genuine climate statistics are calculated over a 30-year rolling average. Any change taken over a year-for year basis could well be due to natural variation - his comments about 'noise'. Personally I would go within degrees of certainty and statistical significance.
155

Lord of All Mordor,

Contemplating The Nokia River. 06/04/2008 21:48:42
"he has covered his bases very neatly"

I mean that he is totally bulletproof. If there is Global Warming - he is right; if there is not, he is also right. Incidentally, if the cooling period takes longer or is intermittent he is still covered.
156

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 06/04/2008 22:09:13
Well, with respect to the Russian Academy of Sciences article by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin. Forgive me, it is getting late, but I am left with wondering if the good doctor has found a particularly rich source of vodka....

His incoherent ramblings include the following errors:

1. "Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells" There is no evidence that that is the case: that is speculation.

2. "and no such thing as the hothouse effect" Nonsense. The natural greenhouse (hothouse) effect was increasing global temperatures by 33C at that time.

3. "The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases." nonsense.

4. "As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground." Well, that's a change! In 2. above he was stating that there is "no such thing as the hothouse effect". Now, suddenly, he believes in it again.
As for "nitrogen peroxide", this highly toxic brown gas, N2O4, is not a significant greenhouse gas for the simple reason that it is highly soluble in water and therefore is rapidly rained out of the atmosphere. I think he must have been thinking (for want of a better word) of nitrous oxide (NO), which is not water soluble to a significant extent and therefore remains in the atmosphere. It is produced by by human agricultural activity (as well as naturally).

5. "heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents" So air currents carry off heat into space. Oh give me strength! How come we have any atmosphere left?

I can't be bothered to plough through the rest of this nonsense. I'm sure Russia has some very fine scientists. I don't think Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin is one of them.
157

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 06/04/2008 22:17:23
Woops, sorry, nitrous oxide is N2O.
158

Phil of It,

vancouver, canada 07/04/2008 01:08:54
At least 90% of the clouds are made by aircraft. They have just recently perfected a new catalyst that increases their efficiency. (Look up the Hughes patent for aluminiumized clouds). More clouds means colder days. It is far worse than you think. Keep your heads buried - I'm sure you would cause more trouble than it's worth if you could see the truth.
159

Hickory,

US 07/04/2008 01:24:27
Nitrous oxide is emitted by bacteria in soils and oceans, and thus has been a part of Earth's atmosphere for eons. Agriculture is the main source of human-produced nitrous oxide: cultivating soil, the use of nitrogen fertilizers, and animal waste handling can all stimulate naturally occurring bacteria to produce more nitrous oxide. The livestock sector (primarily cows, chickens, and pigs) produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide. Industrial sources make up only about 20% of all anthropogenic sources, and include the production of nylon and nitric acid, and the burning of fossil fuel in internal combustion engines.
Human activity is thought to account for somewhat less than 2 teragrams of nitrogen oxides per year, nature for over 15 teragrams. The global anthropogenic nitrous oxide flux is about 1 petagram of carbon dioxide carbon-equivalents per year; this compares to 2 petagrams of methane carbon dioxide carbon-equivalents per year, and to an atmospheric loading rate of about 3.3 petagrams of carbon dioxide carbon-equivalents per year.
160

Lord of All Mordor,

Contemplating The Nokia River. 07/04/2008 10:12:19
I think you'll find he's referring to heat transfer globally which, as far as I remember, is 80% within the air cells (Ferrel, Hadley, Polar) and 20% or so by ocean currents. I also think the 'peroxide' may well be a mistranslation from the original Russian.

I note you did not address any of the other points :
flawed formulae - or rather, invalid assumptions - for computer modelling
compromised data from weather stations used for the official climate figures
the head of the IPCC's comments recently
161

Queen D,

Glasgow 07/04/2008 10:46:16
Did I miss something?
When did it go from Global Warming to Climate Change?
Since I am sitting here shivering over my keyboard, I understand that Global Warming is'nt happening where I am, therefore I believe its a clever change of wording to say Climate Change in order to cover all eventualities.
Have I got that right??
162

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/04/2008 11:21:09
There are a lot of things I didn't comment on in the Russian article. If peroxide was mistranslated, it still leaves the curious question as to why only that gas, and not water, CO2, methane etc were referred to at that point.

Frankly, one cannot take seriously a piece of writing that contains such nonsenses as:

"in the 17th century when there was ... no such thing as the hothouse effect."

"Temperature fluctuations always run somewhat ahead of carbon dioxide concentration changes."

I'm also suspicious of the RAS: the Russians have their eye on the Arctic oil and mineral reserves - which a melted Arctic would reveal. They have much the same incentive to lie about climate change as do the fossil fuel lobby.

163

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/04/2008 11:29:04
As for the Zagoni paper, which I haven't read, I am going to rely on Raypierre's comment on the Realclimate site, here:



Viz, in response to the enquiry about:

http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Miskolczi%20-%20Idojaras%202007%20Jan-March.pdf

A poster, Bill said, "I don’t have time to read it yet, nor is climate science my true expertise, but it sounds like the author, Ferenc Miskolczi, has rederived radiative transfer equations for a FINITE atmosphere (rather than infinite, as is done by Milne 1922) and the result is much less warming from CO2 absorption and a tendency for radiative balance not to wander much. This sounds counter to what I know about radiative processes, and I was hoping one of you would comment on this in a future blog entry, if it warrants it."

[Response by Raypierre: "This paper is more nonsense of a piece with the unpublished MS by Gerlich and Tseuschner, though with the difference that this one is published in an obscure Hungarian weather journal rather than not being published at all. The main use of this paper is as an exercise in “spot the errors” for a grad student in radiative transfer. We could comment on it, but on the whole it’s more worthwhile to spend time commenting on things that have passed review in the more major journals and don’t have such obvious flaws (even if they nonetheless have flaws)."

see:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=538
164

seanie,

07/04/2008 11:43:23
#165

No.
165

Sanny,

Glasgow 07/04/2008 13:04:23
22 Slioch, Scottish Highlands
Slioch did you even bother to look at the references I posted to you yesterday?
www.geocraft.com/WVFossil
s/Carboniferous_climate.html

Here you will find, amongst a wealth of other detail, a record of CO2 and temperature levels over the last 600 million years. The principle purpose of this series of articles is a study of Plants and Fossils on a geologic timescale and is not directed to denying the current obsession with Climate Change.

The article I have specifically drawn attention to is Climate and the Carboniferous Period. This is mainly directed at the laying down of Coal and Oil during this period, nonetheless in passing there is a study of Global Temperatures and CO2 levels throughout the history of the earth. I include some quotes from the article below.
“Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.”
“ There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.”
“The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temper
166

Sanny,

Glasgow 07/04/2008 13:05:55
Continued
According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.”
These three quotes alone should be sufficient to bring the CO2 – GW theory into question. I don’t think any sensible person would deny that climate is changing, it always has and always will. Is Man responsible? I doubt it! Can Man manipulate climate by reducing CO2 emissions? The evidence gives an emphatic no! Mans total annual contribution to Atmospheric CO2 is less than 3% of the total natural annual emissions.
In considering the current increase in Global Temperature one has to allow for the fact that we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age of about a 1,000 years ago so obviously temperatures of the last 200 year period, on which much of the Global Warming is based, are increasing. This study period is far too short to draw any conclusions or to make any predictions.
This whole Global Warming – CO2 scare is political not scientific.
167

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 07/04/2008 13:42:55
Strange that the Cretaceous Period had CO2 levels over 8 times the current levels with no human activity and no ice on the planet.

Stranger still the Ordovician period was about 14 times as much - again not much human activity then and polar ice was about 4/5 of present levels.

It seems the Cryogenic periods had almost no atmospheric CO2 at all. Clearly, levels can fluctuate enormously, but totally naturally.

I'm more interested in the fact that my desktop has a widget showing no sunspot activity at all. I can't help remembering the Dalton and Maunder Minima and, yes I know about the 11, 22 and 65 - 70 year cycles which appear to operate.

I am becoming more convinced than ever that we are heading into a period of cooling which could be prolonged and possibly quite severe.

As for el nino and el nina years, remember they have multi-decadal cycles too. The 70s, 80s and 90s were predominantly el ninos (bringing warmer temperatures) whereas the previous 30 years were predominantly el nina years (lower temperatures). El ninos and el ninas seem to be seen as secondary to CO2 levels at least by the GW brigade. The evidence would seem to suggest that they are a compnent in their own right.



168

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 07/04/2008 13:49:19
I also read something to the effect that the ocean heat readings are showing the same decline as the atmospheric ones over the last five years or so. That surely suggests that the cooling is real.
169

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/04/2008 15:02:01
I don't have time just now to respond in full to #169 to #172. I'll just pick up a few points:

#169-170 "Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.”

Of course they do. Have you ever encountered anyone who denied that or implied that that was not the case??

Past, particularly ancient, climates, whilst interesting and informative, are of limited direct relevance to present climatic changes. Of more relevance are changes within the last million years or so, when the sun was similar to the present, the configuration of the continents was similar and when we have much more reliable data. For example, in the Eemian interglacial, a mere 125,000 years ago, average global temperatures may have been 1 or 2 deg Celsius warmer than at present - and sea level was at least three and probably more than five METRES higher than at present. Just think for a while about what a sea level rise of that magnitude, extending over a few centuries, would mean. Goodbye London, New York, Holland, Florida etc etc.

"Mans total annual contribution to Atmospheric CO2 is less than 3% of the total natural annual emissions."

That is a frequently made but utterly irrelevant observation. The important point is that CO2 levels have increased from 280 to 385 due to human actions - that is a 37% increase.

#171 El Ninos and La Ninas RE-DISTRIBUTE heat around the Earth's surface and oceans, they do not change (except to a very tiny extent) the net absorption of heat from the sun. El Ninos result in more of the heat ending up in the atmosphere and land surface, and less in the oceans. La Ninas (as at present) do the opposite. The amount of heat being captured by the greenhouse gases meanwhile pays very little attention to these events - like Ole Man River, it just keep rollin' along - UPWARDS!
170

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 07/04/2008 15:20:19
An earlier posts sums it up re nino / nina years: 20% 0f the heat is distributed by oceans and 80% by air.

Also I noted an earlier post or two re models using infinite vs finite atmospheres as conditions. I find it interesting that rather do any detailed work on it, the response is to belittle it and ignore the work. That smacks of "I've made my mind up, now don't confuse me with anything which challenges that."

I would have thought that any climate model would have needed to posit an atmosphere which resembled the Earth's real atmosphere in thickness, composition in all essential details. Now does an infinitely thick atmosphere do that ? I think not.

Have mathematics and computing ability moved on since the 1920s ? I think so.
171

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 07/04/2008 15:28:00
Re Slioch 173

Have you ever encountered anyone who denied that or implied that that was not the case??

Yes Slioch, including you. On several (quite a lot it seems to me) occasions you have made comments which maintain that while other factors may influence the climate CO2 is the only one we should considering.

Unfortunately, unlike you, I do not cut, paste and cross-reference comments to throw back at people later as I have seen you do on occasion. I have too much of a life to go to those lengths.

My interpretation is you are extremely hostile to anything other the 'party line' as far as AGW is concerned. I see you ignore items posed by people who dare to think differently to you eg from 164

"compromised data from weather stations used for the official climate figures
the head of the IPCC's comments recently"



172

Prester John,

07/04/2008 15:45:12
Oops

"we should considering." should be "be we should considering. "

and

"anything other the" should be "anything other than the"

Sorry
173

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 07/04/2008 15:46:25
Oops (squared)

"be we should considering. " should be "we should be considering. "

174

mike - across the pond,

Slioch 07/04/2008 17:01:36
goin WAY back to your Post at #22...

you had it right the FIRST time...

in point 1 you cite .019C then in point 2 reference it as "about .02"... then in what appears to be a breathless TedTurner-esque piece of panic-brokesmanship in post 23... you attempt to say oops I made a mistake that should have been .2 "SEE ISNT THAT JUST HORRIBLE"... I assume hoping that nobody would go back and look....

THIS is the kind of "math" that the GW crowd repeatedly uses to "prove" its theories.... and if nobody notices... well we all get to pay "carbon taxes"... because "the sky is falling.... the sky is falling"... and and and venus has all this CO2 in its atmosphere and and and its 900 degrees... its its its ALL FROM THE RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT!!!! (completely ignoring the OBVIOUS FACT that venus is 40% CLOSER to the burning orb that transits our skies.... and thus SHOULD be hotter!!!! bunch of frickin einstiens!!!)

if you are trying to "sell" GW panic on the grounds that "the highs are higher than the lows" I have ONE thing to say to you.... WELL DUH!!!!
175

seanie,

07/04/2008 18:50:35
Can you not read?

The figures refer to two different things.

The 0.019C per year refers to the underlying warming trend over the last 30 years.

The 0.2C correction referred to the tempoary effects of an El Nino that are independent of such a warming trend.

The problem here isn't one of maths or science. It's a failure of basic reading comprehension skills.
176

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/04/2008 20:31:00
#174 & 175 Prester John

re "Have you ever encountered anyone who denied that or implied that that was not the case??"

It is not the case that you have read anything that I (or anyone else who regularly comments on these threads who recognises the reality of AGW) have said that suggests that no "other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.” One would have to be a total imbecile to form such a view.

So you dishonestly change the question to, "you have made comments which maintain that while other factors may influence the climate CO2 is the only one we should considering." But that is not true either. What possible benefit could be obtained by so doing? There are also the other greenhouse gases whose concentrations are augmented by human action: methane, nitrous oxide and the CFCs. Those are the factors that can be influenced by human action (which is why they receive a lot of attention) and it is those factors that the climate models have to take into account if the climate changes for the last thirty odd years are to be accounted for. Changes in the sun or volcanoes or water vapour or other natural factors on their own cannot be made to account for those changes, but that does not mean that their contribution is ignored. To maintain such is to bring the no understanding to the situation.

"I see you ignore items posed by people who dare to think differently to you"

That's right, I frequently do, particularly if, as in this case they have been amply answered elsewhere. I cannot respond to everything that people post, nor is it reasonable to suggest to anyone that they should. No doubt if I did find the time to do so, you would be telling me that "I have too much of a life to go to those lengths."

As for the Zagoni paper, I made it very clear that I was going to rely on the expertise (which is far greater than mine) of Raypierre on radiative transfer in this matter.

177

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/04/2008 20:44:51
#178 Mike - across the pond

Hi Mike. It's always nice to hear from you. Not sure why. Must be because you're so frickin excitable, and I don't often get to use words like that.

I hope Seanie put you right re #22. Your complaint about my post #22 was total nonsense of course, but it does give me the opportunity to explain that BECAUSE the 1998 El Nino caused a spike in global average temperature of c. 0.2C, and BECAUSE the long term trend is 0.019C, THEN we should expect it to take take about ten years (0.2/0.19 = c.10) for the long term trend to "catch up with the peak" and the 1998 peak to be overtaken. Which is more or less what we have observed.
178

George in Canada,

Vancouver 07/04/2008 21:41:35
Well, what I see here is the choir preaching to the choir. There even seems to be a mutually satisfying antagonism between the camps. Ultimately, no resolution between the groups will ever take place.

This is actually not suprizing as the Global Warming camp has declared that there is no more debate needed and indeed, the debate has been won, and the official dogma is in place and cannot be disputed. By definition, the Global Warming camp members are now clearly and properly able to be called zealots and cultists, as they have all the trappings. They cannot declare themselves as thinkers or scientists as open minds are required for such callings.

That being said, one cannot debate or argue with zealots. One must engage people in everyday circumstances and express ones view in a cogent and debatable manner. In this regard, the Global Warmists have lost their cause. I say this because, when one adheres to an official dogma, all it takes is one argument to discrete the whole dogma. The other group, the Climate Realists, only need to get one or two truths across to their neighbour or fellow traveller or co-worker and the seed of doubt over the dogma is planted.

We cannot abide dogma. Historically, dogma has served to hinder Mankind, never to help it along. I would say to the Global Warmists, I congratulate your former (if one can ever be a former) politician, Mr Gore for his powerpoint presentation. However, now that people have paused to take a breath and are asking questions, Mr. Gore does not make himself available for answering questions. How strange. However, as is said in Las Vegas, he has blown his wad, and it is all downhill from here.

On the other hand, for the Climate Realists, the job is getting easier to permit a cogent debate on what is happening climactically as the dogma is starting to crack. Indeed a real debate is needed. How else are we going to face our neighbour who lost his or her manufacturing job because the company mov
179

eyeswider,

back again 07/04/2008 22:15:22

I have spent the last couple hours researching this:

"Would you dispute Hottel’s measure of the emissivity==absorptivity of C02(300ppmv or 3000ppmv) at STP of 15micron radiation at 9*10^-4? Would you disagree that those of asphalt are approximately 1000 times greater?"

It was difficult because the papers are locked up on science sites. Hoyt Clarke Hottel died in 1998 aged 93 so his work is not spread over the net like some people's.

The award named after him was easier to dig into:

http://www.ases.org/about/awards/hottel.htm


How d'ya like them apples?




180

eyeswider,

07/04/2008 22:21:44
#182 George in Canada

Debate is forbidden - you will be assimilated.


However....

http://www.uah.edu/

(you may have to refresh the page as they value their real estate and cycle the news items on the right side)

Seems someone has ignored credo.


# anyone

can you get this paper?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/mt265018430u2355/

could be a doozy





181

seanie,

07/04/2008 22:40:15
It's a paper about the emmisivity of CO2 at temperatures over 600°C. The relevance being what exactly?
182

Phil of It,

vancouver, canada 08/04/2008 04:19:32
Chemtrails
183

Angoos,

Baku, Azerbaijan 08/04/2008 08:07:30
My ice lolly melts in the Summer but doesn't in the Winter regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere !!!
184

Reckless,

Truth 08/04/2008 13:28:13
Expert: "We're brainwashing our children" about global warming

Bob Swanson and Doyle Rice
USA Today
Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Another post from guest blogger Rick Neale of Florida Today, from the National Hurricane Conference in Orlando:

William Gray, the well-known Colorado State University hurricane forecaster, routinely uses the annual National Hurricane Conference as a platform to bash global warming. In a statement to Florida Today, Gray argued that the scientific consensus on global warming is bogus — and "a mild form of McCarthyism has developed toward those scientists who do not agree" that mankind is in danger.

"We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no better example than Al Gore's alarmists and inaccurate movie which is being shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or no meteorological-climate background," Gray wrote.
185

Reckless,

Truth 08/04/2008 13:28:19
Expert: "We're brainwashing our children" about global warming

Bob Swanson and Doyle Rice
USA Today
Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Another post from guest blogger Rick Neale of Florida Today, from the National Hurricane Conference in Orlando:

William Gray, the well-known Colorado State University hurricane forecaster, routinely uses the annual National Hurricane Conference as a platform to bash global warming. In a statement to Florida Today, Gray argued that the scientific consensus on global warming is bogus — and "a mild form of McCarthyism has developed toward those scientists who do not agree" that mankind is in danger.

"We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no better example than Al Gore's alarmists and inaccurate movie which is being shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or no meteorological-climate background," Gray wrote.
186

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 08/04/2008 20:15:50
I think I avoided saying that Slioch only ever bangs on about CO2 as the Great Satan, (trying to be fair) only most of the time - nothing dishonest about that. My interpretation is that other physical factors are frequently downplayed in his posts.

Take for instance el nino / ninas. He mentions this year's el nina and uses it as a way to excuse probable cooling rather than warming and then, oh yes, warming will resume. Oh really ?

No mention or response to the fact that the 30 years from 1967 - 97 were predominantly el nino years and so would be warmer whereas the previous 30 years which were mainly el ninas and so would be cooler. Any analysis of this as a partial explanation of the cooler early-mid 20th Century and the warmer end ? No, not at all.

Any mention of solar cycle 20 which was weaker and longer in length ? Any mention that solar cycles 24 and 25 look as though they may be heading for the quietness associated with the Dalton minimum ?

Any consideration of the possibility that the Pacific Ocean may head into another multi-decadal series of el ninas ?

No - and he casts aspersions at others ?
187

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 08/04/2008 20:41:28
From Real Climate :

"Slioch Says:
13 February 2008 at 15:08
#21 Jim Cripwell said, “If you do the right sort of analysis of world temperature anomaly against time over the last 30 years or so, it is clear that temperatures have gone through a shallow maximum, and the temperature/time graph, as of now, is negative.”

Really? Take a look at the following article by Tamino, based on NASA GRISS compilations, Jim. I think you will agree that your statement cannot be substantiated. Unless by “now” you are referring to some short term cherry-picked part of the temperature graph that is presently going down. But then there are numerous occasions over the last 30 years or so when that has been the case - that is why it is necessary to look at longer term trends, and rather than short term variations."

Is this the same Slioch who seems reluctant to consider long term trends. His arguments focus on year for year differences. Strange that climate data for places are always given as 35 year rolling averages not a single year's figures.
188

Prester John,

08/04/2008 21:04:15
Further From Real Climate

"In 58 Slioch writes “Really? Take a look at the following article by Tamino, based on NASA GRISS compilations, Jim. I think you will agree that your statement cannot be substantiated. Indeed, there is no support for it from the data.” We have been round this mulberry bush many times. The reference you gave uses ONLY the NASA/GISS data. I use all five data sets (URLs on request). Up to about two years ago, the trends from all the data sets were in rough agreement. In the last two years or so, the NASA/GISS data gives a different trend from the others. It is true that NASA/GISS shows that temperatures are still rising, but the other four sets show temperatures are falling. One wonders what effect the January 2008 data from NASA/GISS presages. I would note, as I have done several times, that there is no study which compares and contrasts the different data sets, so we dont know which one is “best”. It may well be that NASA/GISS has got it right, but I suggest the preponderence of evidence is that it is the outlier. Time will tell. I do wish people on RC would desist from ONLY quoting NASA/GISS temperatures, as if they were some sort of Bible. There are five data sets, not one."

Funny I don't remember Slioch supporting others who've made the point about there being 5 data sets with GISS being very much the - to use his words - 'the outlier"
189

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 08/04/2008 21:08:15
4 data sets falling ............ and only GISS rising .......

mmmmmm......

Where are these points in your earlier posts Slioch ?
190

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 08/04/2008 21:31:03
Oops :

Climate averages are done over 30 years as I correctly noted earlier but mis-typed in 191.
191

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/04/2008 22:09:07
#190-191 Prester John

Many of the comments about CO2 that I have made have been in response to people who are claiming that human induced CO2 is not significant (eg see #170 Sanny above), or doesn't have any effect on heat retention, or some such. It is also the case that changing CO2 emissions would have the greatest impact on our lifestyles and receives the greatest attention in many quarters. It is hardly surprising that CO2 is the centre of attention in my deliberations.

We will see if warming resumes after the current La Nina declines (the latter appears to be weakening slightly). If warming doesn't resume then it will be necessary to find other explanations: at present it appears that La Nina is the main culprit. NASA (sorry, can't find the ref. just now) report that changes in the sun due to the current minimum contributes a reduction of 0.3W/sqm, in contrast to which anthropogenic CO2 is +1.66W/sqm.

As for the preponderance of El Ninos in the previous thirty years: neither El Ninos nor La Ninas can have any significant impact on the long term trend in global average temperatures, so your suggestion is not valid. As I stated above, they merely re-distribute heat, which causes short term fluctuations from the long term trend but have no significant impact on the absorption of heat by the
Earth and therefore do not effect that long term trend. If you have any information to the contrary I'd be interested to see it. As you imply, there is presently a lot of interest in the prospect for increased El Nino/La Nina episodes as a result of global warming, but that is because of their often dramatic short term effects, rather than any implication for global warming: again, if you have information to the contrary then post it.

Your final point (#191) is just ridiculous. If I have been banging on about anything in the last few months (as well as CO2 of course), whilst these threads have been inundated with assertions that "global warming has stopped etc
192

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/04/2008 22:27:03
contd.

whilst these threads have been inundated with assertions that "global warming has stopped" etc is the importance of looking at long term trends.

#192-#193

And now you become even more ridiculous. Immediately after berating me (without any justification) for "focussing on year for year differences", you then berate me for not focussing on the very recent difference between NASA GISS and the others!!

Incidentally, the reason for the recent divergence in the NASA GISS series is that the Arctic last year warmed very considerably - remember the record summer ice melt. NASA GISS is better represented in the Arctic and therefore that regional variation caused a divergence.
193

eyeswider,

icebox 1 08/04/2008 23:39:37


A(very inconvenient) collection of peer reviewed papers:

http://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf
194

eyeswider,

thawing a little 09/04/2008 00:05:15

Quite balanced: (walks backwards, knocks over chair and considers exclamation marks)

http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.2180302.0.0.php


Aside-
The Met office - We predict a warm wet summer.

Me - It will be wet alright. But cold.





195

paul o,

Wodonga 09/04/2008 09:48:05
This is obivously a 'hot' topic.
#6,
Yes I too remember similar pridictions from 1969-71. After a 'short hot spike' in world temperatures it is likely we will find ourselves in another 'ice age' or at least a prolonged 'cooler' period. That was the thoughts behind a bunch of geologists in one of their published text books of the era.
196

paul o,

Wodonga 09/04/2008 09:50:37
Sorry, I had to post coment 200.
Does anyone know how much CO2 7 billion breath out every day?
197

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/04/2008 10:28:41
#200 paul o,Wodonga

Does anyone know how much CO2 7 billion breath out every day?

Why do you want to know and where on Earth is Woodonga, (assuming it is on Earth, that is)?
198

mk-ultra,

Edinburgh 09/04/2008 10:53:55
The idea of man-made climate change is a scam which is being used to justify a move towards Global taxation, Global bureaucracy, radical population control and ultimately a World Government....the "New World Order" which Broon is always talking about.
In a book titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement:

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human
intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

199

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/04/2008 11:17:02
#200

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

gives a back of the envelope calculation and comes out at somewhere between 1.4 and 2.2 billion tons CO2 per year.

In contrast, the IPPC 2007 Summary for Policy Makers gives the amount of CO2 emitted (during 2000-2005) from burning fossil fuels as c.26.4 billion tons per year, and from land use changes (mainly forest clearance) as c.5.9 btpy.
200

eyeswider,

la la land 09/04/2008 12:47:45

Dr. Roy W. Spencer Ph.D, Meteorology University of Wisconsin - Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama In Huntsville:

"Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the same amount every day. While this does not 'prove' that global warming is not man made, it shows that weather systems have by far the greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is dominated by water vapor and clouds."


http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Hey-Nobel-Prize-Winners-Answer-Me-This.pdf

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0802/0802.3130.pdf

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.1276.pdf

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Yes yes - I know he is a retired, lying, oil funded, glossy website owning tobacco apologist and this automatically makes everything he says or has discovered or researched a lie. Don't bother trying to persuade me that scientists can be bought as I have read the entire IPCC report.

I bow to your superior wisdom. I will, henceforth and with no concrete evidence provided as to why, allow myself to be taxed to the point where I will be in no position to feed my children, or minister to the planet, or complain about the UN communists taking my freedom and keeping the third world face down in poverty, or prevent fascists from telling me what is, and is not, true or in mine or the planet’s best interest.







201

eyeswider,

stuck in the thinktank 09/04/2008 13:10:19
CO2 is the distraction.

The agenda is control.

CO2 has been many times todays' level many times in the past and the coral reefs and other "fragile" creatures are still here.

Unfortunately humanity is so fecund that weak, dumb and warped individuals can gain a position of power at the expense of all others and then fly absurd propositions in the face of truth.

Big Al has increased his worth from $1,000,000 in 2000 to 100x that just eight years later. Using outright lies and his friends' control over the banks and the media.

What did you do to fight that particular obscenity today?





202

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/04/2008 14:11:41

#205 eyeswider

What do you do to fight that particular obscenity?

Well, the last thing that you should do is to mock yourself with falsehoods.

You're going to have a hard life, Eyeswide, kicking against the pricks of physical reality, whilst siding with the real villains of the piece.

Incidentally, during those times when CO2 was much higher than today, so was sea level. One hundred metres higher. Just think about that for a while.
203

eyeswider,

lol 09/04/2008 14:29:59
#206 Slioch

I am nearly 60 Slioch. I ain't had it easy many many times already and don't expect much to change (-;

I have learned patience - it did not come easy to me. I have found that in the vast majority of cases Descartes had it right on when he said to doubt everything from time to time.

I say let us wait to see who the pricks are in this particular story. I believe we don't have much longer to wait. The current physical reality is that CO2 (albeit in the worst place on Earth for measurements to be taken) is falling (doubtless due to a "moderate" La Nina), temperatures are breaking (cold)records worldwide and the current solar cycle seems a little... protracted. Utter coincidence I would hazard to guess.

Normal warming will be resumed as soon as possible.

It will stay cold this year. And next.

The truth always emerges.

How have my forecasts struck you so far Slioch. Do you remember them?


...and, btw, which falsehoods??

204

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/04/2008 15:00:27
"I believe we don't have much longer to wait."

Yes, I think that is correct. A few years should settle it.

My resistance to believing "it's the sun wot's done it" with respect to the current cool months is due to a) the remarkable coincidence, if it is the sun, galloping over the horizon to rescue us from a warming world just when we're starting to get worried, b) the lack of necessity for such an explanation, (was it Laplace in a separate context who said, "I have no need for such an hypothesis"), since a strong La Nina is sufficient explanation and that is indubitably happening. c) the lack of correlation between the sun and climate in the last thirty years. and d) the people and organisations proposing the possibility, many of whom have vested interests.

Re, "current physical reality is that CO2 (albeit in the worst place on Earth for measurements to be taken) is falling" - what do you mean?

"temperatures are breaking (cold)records worldwide" - exaggeration. Get used to a world of greater climatic variations.

Your forecasts? So far accurate enough, but then they don't vary so far from what is expected during a dip in global temperatures. I thought you said previously that you thought 2009 was going to be warm, but perhaps I've misremembered.

Falsehoods? Oh, just all these garbage website you keep finding for us. I'm not impugning your integrity: I believe you are sincere, just deluded.

I have to go.
205

eyeswider,

home again home again tickety boo 09/04/2008 19:09:00
At the end of this year it will be obvious that the science has been fixed around the policy.

No coincidence just natural rhythm.

Mauna Lao - the largest active volcano on Earth and next to two other active volcanoes and in the prevailing wind from a wide swathe of the warmest part of the Pacific ocean. Best possible placing for a CO2 sensor.
206

eyeswider,

worthless 09/04/2008 19:18:23
One of the garbage websites:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

"As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the “heat” passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don’t account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth."

James A. Peden - an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the “100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year” and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.
207

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 09/04/2008 19:22:14
I think it's quite interesting.

In Real Climate Slioch goes on about the need to look at long term trends then in post 75 we get

" 2006 +0.65C
2007 *0.73C

- which is an INCREASE of 0.08C from 2006 to 2007. 2007 was the second warmest year (after 2005) ever recorded (since 1880) in the NASA GISS compilation". If that's not year for year nit-picking what is ? Meaningful climate statistics are worked out over 30 year rolling averages.

Then he complains when he is picked up for making the point about GISS stas being the 'outlier' in RealClimate posts but fails to support another post which makes the same point on Scotsman posts and was ripped to pieces for doing so as I remember. If I'm right then mealy-mouthed or what ?

Finally, he posits this year's el nina as a possible depressant for this year's statistics but immediately disparages THIRTY years when le ninas predominated then another THIRTY years when el ninos predominated :

"As for the preponderance of El Ninos in the previous thirty years: neither El Ninos nor La Ninas can have any significant impact on the long term trend in global average temperatures, so your suggestion is not valid. "

However he also says :

"We will see if warming resumes after the current La Nina declines .."

Now either el nina and el ninos have a measurable effect or they don't. Nowhere, in all the reading have I found any analysis by AGW zealots to disentangle possible trends over the 60 years involved with (roughly) 30 cooler years (el Nina) then 30 warmer years (el Nino) to see what the underlying trends are and how much effect the upwellings have..
208

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 09/04/2008 19:29:33
Then we have the mealy-mouthed approach again.

On checking various threads from the past by Googling, I found a post by MS which asked Slioch if he could admit he was wrong if other factors turned out to be major factors. Slioch said yes but what do we find ?

Weasel words. "We will see if warming resumes after the current La Nina declines (the latter appears to be weakening slightly). If warming doesn't resume then it will be necessary to find other explanations: ". Just like the maths paper he is so fond of quoting here and elsewhere - a bullet-proof paper which covers its author in both directions. Now there's a surprise.

I read that as Slioch preparing the ground for a volte-face. If the world cools in the foreseeable future, we will find Slioch abandoning the AGW ship I suspect.
209

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 09/04/2008 19:35:51
However, I have been off work for a little while and spent a morning trawling (not trolling I hope you note) many cached pages from various sites such as RealClimate and found a number of posts by Slioch which are really interesting. If I have time and am logged on when there are suitable topics I shall enjoy throwing them into the mix.
210

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 09/04/2008 19:57:47
Final thoughts for the night re Slioch's posts:

" b) the lack of necessity for such an explanation, (was it Laplace in a separate context who said, "I have no need for such an hypothesis"), since a strong La Nina is sufficient explanation and that is indubitably happening. c) the lack of correlation between the sun and climate in the last thirty years."

If a strong el nino is sufficient then what about 30 ? And then how about a strong el nino then what about 30 ?

Slioch, mein freund, you cannot have your kuchen and es essen. You pick and choose things like one el nina to support your argument and then and try to belittle 30. Not the best position to take I trow.

Finally, the sun operates on cycles of 11 (Schwabe), 22 (Hale) cycles where the odd-numbered cycles seem to be higher in amplitude than the even-number cycles (the Hale Cycle). Note for example the lower peak in 1970 of cycle 20. The again, there appears to be 66-year cycle (triple Hale cycles)

So to suggest that we should only concern ourselves with the last 30 years of solar activity when there is evidence of cycles at least 66 years in length or so is fatuous.

No doubt Slioch will try to play down the Maunder and Dalton Minima although again in a reply to MS he seems to dismiss the Little Ice Age as lack of solar activity but that's all past, nothing to concern us now.


211

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 09/04/2008 20:04:30
Oops. I'll tidy this up before I head for the hills.

"Finally, the sun operates on cycles of 11 (Schwabe), 22 (Hale) cycles where the odd-numbered cycles seem to be higher in amplitude than the even-number cycles (the Hale Cycle). Note for example the lower peak in 1970 of cycle 20. The again, there appears to be 66-year cycle (triple Hale cycles) "

Should read :

"Finally, the sun operates on cycles of 11 years (Schwabe cycles) and then over that, 22 years (Hale cycles ) where the odd-numbered cycles seem to be higher in amplitude than the even-number cycles. Note for example the lower peak in 1970 of cycle 20. Then again, there appear to be 66-year cycles (triple Hale cycles)"

Good night all - away to play with my Nikon D2x. Looking forward to Slioch's responses.
212

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 09/04/2008 20:08:52
Absolutely finally to tidy 211

"Then he complains when he is picked up for making the point about GISS stas being the 'outlier' in RealClimate posts but fails to support another post which makes the same point on Scotsman posts and was ripped to pieces for doing so as I remember. If I'm right then mealy-mouthed or what ?"

Reads more accurately as

"Then he complains when he is picked up for making the point about GISS stas being the 'outlier' (in RealClimate posts) but he failed to support another post which made the same point (on Scotsman post) and the author was ripped to pieces for doing so as I remember. If I'm right then mealy-mouthed or what ?


213

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/04/2008 22:30:57
#209&210 eyeswider

Well, at least you are interested in the science rather than the man, which is more than be said for this other gadfly. Let me respond to your two points:

Mauna Loa

You dispute its usefulness.

Have you looked at the Mauna Loa curve of CO2 atmospheric concentrations? It is one of the most beautiful curves in the whole of natural science. Look at it now - you can find it, I don't need to do that for you - see how it wriggles, each year, but on a graph that is otherwise smooth? The wriggles are there because much of the land on Earth is in the northern hemisphere, and the the vegetation in those northern climes absorbs CO2 each northern summer, and therefore the atmospheric concentration drops just a little - but enough to be detected by the graph. Those wriggles on an otherwise smooth graph tell us two important things. Firstly that CO2 in the atmosphere mixes rapidly around the world - otherwise the wriggles wouldn't show up, and secondly, that the graph is true, since if the CO2 concentrations were being contaminated by other sources, such as a nearby or distant volcano, then such fine detail would be lost. The graph is self-truthing, it doesn't need to be defended, it speaks for itself to those who have the ears to hear. The curve does pick up such events as Pinatuvo, but otherwise it shows the relentless rise in CO2 caused by human actions.

More, that it is, more than most such streams of data, the work, the life-work, of one man, Charles Keeling who argued for Mauna Loa and dedicated his life to recording every four hours starting in 1958, day in day out, this data. He even missed the birth of his first-born so as not to miss a recording.

And now, scientific illiterates like yourself, spouting insults and garbage, think to question such information. Rather you herald the beginnings of an age of darkness, led by the venal and vested interests whilst trumpeting righteousness.

So, your first example of garbage tries to rubbis
214

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/04/2008 22:32:06
Contd

So, your first example of garbage tries to rubbish an impeccable source of data. Your second, the Peden article, uses a different tack. I haven't checked his data, but let us assume it is correct. What is his tactic? He uses a correct analysis to imply that the amount of heat trapped by CO2 is tiny. And leaves it there. And you are supposed to conclude that JEEZ! that just shows how these AGW alarmists have been misleading us! And again, you fall for it: can you feel your blood being drunk like wine yet

Let us be thankful CO2 only absorbs a tiny fraction of the radiation leaving the Earth, otherwise we would rapidly fry. Do you understand?: he is outlining a non-problem and pretending or implying otherwise.

Let us approach this question (of how much radiation CO2 absorbs) from an entirely different direction.

If you look up the solar flux arriving at the Earth you will find it to be c. 1366 Watts per square metre. (That's a HUGE amount - a one bar electric fire is only 1000 Watts, so imagine more than an electric fire every square metre EVERYWHERE). How much hits the Earth? Well the Earth is a sphere, the surface area of which is four times the area of a disc of the same diameter, so the average amount of solar flux hitting the surface of the Earth is 1366/4 = 342 W/sqm.
Of this about 30% is reflected straight back out into space as short wave radiation. That leaves about 240 W/sqm being absorbed by the Earth. Now, if the Earth is to remain at a constant temperature it must radiate that amount of energy, 240W/sqm, back out into space, and it does so in the form of long wave infra red radiation. If less than that 240/sqm escapes, the Earth will warm up. And it is here that CO2 steps in, absorbing some of that radiation.

So, how much do you think the AGW alarmists claim that CO2 absorbs? From the tone of what Peden is saying you would think that these venal alarmists were claiming quite a large chunk of that 240W/sqm was being absorbed by CO2 -
215

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/04/2008 22:33:09
Contd.

So, how much do you think the AGW alarmists claim that CO2 absorbs? From the tone of what Peden is saying you would think that these venal alarmists were claiming quite a large chunk of that 240W/sqm was being absorbed by CO2 - he says that if the atmosphere was all CO2 it would absorb up to 8% ie 19.2W/sqm.

If you look in the 2007 IPPC AR4 SPM you will find the figure there of just 1.66W/sqm. for CO2 absorption.

Peden has invented a problem that does not exist. He pretends the AGW alarmists are claiming something they are not, and throws in a bit of complicated science to make sure you don't understand, but just go go away thinking these AGW alarmists have been lying again. Sure, he's clever, just look at all those qualifications that you loyally tell us about. He's drinking up your blood like wine Eyeswide. It's about time you wised up.



216

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/04/2008 22:46:41
It is late. I can't be bothered with nonsense that the troll Prester John is indulging himself with. Maybe in the morning. At least, Eyeswide, you are genuinely deceived and genuinely concerned. Prester John just seems to be looking for a fight, which is the most boring thing on Earth.
217

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 10/04/2008 09:53:38
A few responses to Prester John:

#211: the post you quote was in response to someone who confused monthly with global figures. I corrected the error. The fact that one should concentrate on long term trends does not mean one completely ignores short term changes, just recognise them as having less significance.

“as I remember”: I’m not interested in you imperfect recollections.

El Nino/La Nina: again you exaggerate the history. The following shows the El Nino/La Nina history:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/enso/soi_map_and_plot.gif

Besides, as pointed out earlier, El Nino/La Nina are NOT in themselves significant forcings: they do NOT effect the amount of heat being trapped on Earth, or only very slightly. They may effect other forcings – such as the amount of CO2 absorbed by oceans or cloud cover and therefore have a second order effect – I don’t know how much that is. As I said previously, if you have information on that then post it.

As for, "We will see if warming resumes after the current La Nina dip .." So we will. If warming does not resume then obviously La Nina was not the only culprit for the present cooling dip. At present we have two possible candidates: La Nina and a quiet sun. The present dip in temperature is about the same size as the 1998 El Nino peak. Therefore the dip could be just La Nina. When La Nina ends it will be easier to see what effect the quiet sun is having. My present understanding is “a little (0.3W/sqm), but not very much”.

#212 a very silly post.

“If the world cools in the foreseeable future, we will find Slioch abandoning the AGW ship” If the world cools in the future due to a quiet sun it will provide NO information concerning AGW. AGW posits that man-made greenhouse gases cause a positive forcing on global temperature. Of course it does not deny that changes in the sun, and other things, do not also have an effect (how could it?), just that the climate changes for the last thirty years can only be ex
218

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 10/04/2008 09:54:38
Contd.

just that the climate changes for the last thirty years can only be explained by taking anthropogenic greenhouse gases into account. That remains, and will remain, the case whatever the sun gets up to in the future.
219

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 10/04/2008 14:28:53
Although I may look like a troll, whatever else I am, it's not a troll. Nor do I do I indulge in arguments for their own sake. That's pointless.

It still seems logical that if 1 el nina can depress temperatures or 1 el nino give rise to higher ones then a multi-decadal cycle which is predominantly one or the other will have a similar impact over those decades. I didn't say they were forcing the climate. They could however, affect the graphs of temperature over time in that a period of predominantly nina years will be cooler than expected so that section of the temeprature graph will be lower while long periods of ninos will be higher, giving an overall gradient which is steeper than may have occurred otherwise.

As for the seconday effects such as cloud cover and carbon dioxide absorption I have already said that no-one seems to have done any real work in this area.

The only other thing Slioch and I seem to agree on is that the next few years are likely to be seminal.

Anyway, bags packed, airline ticket paid for, longish holiday in the sun here I come ! Bye.

220

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 10/04/2008 19:52:14
#223 Prester John

Well, firstly, I welcome your first paragraph.

I think we all have a lot more to learn about El Ninos and La Ninas: one of the intriguing questions is whether climate change is effecting them. It does rather appear so: the 1998 El Nino was the strongest of the twentieth century. Perhaps the present La Nina will also prove unusual.

Meanwhile, have a good holiday.



221

eyeswider,

right 10/04/2008 20:47:23


http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/



222

seanie,

10/04/2008 22:19:44
A graph showing the steady upwards trend in CO2 emissions?

Now I see.

You're an agent provocateur trying to discredit the anti-global warming fraternity by presenting inept arguments in their name.

I salute you sir!
223

seanie,

10/04/2008 22:37:31
And Prester John, please stop with the 'el nina'.

It's EL nino and LA nina.
224

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 11/04/2008 10:21:13
Eyeswide's wish has been granted.

The NASA GISS average global temperature figures for March 2008 are published, here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

They show:

Jan 2008 +0.31C above the global average for 1951-1980
Feb 2008 +0.33C ditto
Mar 2008 +0.81C ditto

So much for the quiet sun. It is (of course) too early to make any definitive statement. But so far the statement, "the recent cooling has been caused by the present solar minimum" is not supported by the evidence.

HADCRU is yet to post their figures for March, but their figures to Feb also show a recovery from the Jan minimum:

Jan 2008 +0.056C above global average for 1961-1990
Feb 2008 +0.194C ditto

225

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 12:12:14


#226 seanie

Have you looked at it lately?

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
226

seanie,

11/04/2008 12:17:35
Yes indeedy.

And it'd take a denial of reality of truly epic proportions to look at it and see any trend other than up.
227

eyeswider,

hmm 11/04/2008 12:21:00

Funny that La Nina is cooling still(I imagine that is how the drop in CO2 is being interpreted). Yet global temps are climbing(?)

Frank Zappa:
There are only two things that smell of fish. And one of them is fish.
228

seanie,

11/04/2008 12:22:22
And if you take another look at it try scrolling down the page.

Because that top graph is from Mauna Loa, in your opinion "the worst place on Earth for measurements to be taken."

But below it is a graph showing CO2 readings from a globally distributed network of sampling sites, which surely must be more reliable than data from "the worst place on Earth for measurements to be taken."

And what does it show?

ROFLMAO
229

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 13:58:59

#232 seanie

That was my point exactly.

I just love the way you guys interpret data. Really I am having some great fun doing the rounds.

I would be firmly in the scared camp if I didn't have a good handle on what is assuredly occurring.

Long cool wet summer approaches. At least here in the UK.

Next year cool too.

When we get there feel free to wonder why - and how I knew beforehand. I have a lot of patience.




http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=130255

http://climatesci.org/2008/04/08/latest-msu-lower-troposhperic-temperature-values-from-the-university-of-alabama-at-huntsville/




"Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree. This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm


230

seanie,

11/04/2008 14:02:08
Your point being what?

Both graphs show the same thing. The rising trend in CO2 concentrations, that in turn is casuing the rising trend in global temperatures.
231

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 14:46:54
"....This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998...."

232

eyeswider,

(-; 11/04/2008 14:51:19


http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
233

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:00:20
We've been here before;

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

"A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade."
234

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:00:33
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/dept/0108_globaltemp.htm

"To determine if warming has recently stopped, consider the data from the past eight years, from 2000 to 2007. This is a more meaningful comparison than 1998 to 2007, as 1998 temperatures were anomalously high as a result of the "El Niño of the century" (pdf), a natural cyclical event that produced an enormous temperature spike relative to surrounding years. Choosing an El Niño year as that start of the dataset would amount to rather egregious cherry picking (though both GISS temp and HadCRU would still show a warming trend over the decade)."

"Over the past eight years, Earth has warmed 0.025 degrees C per year according to GISS, and 0.014 degrees C per year according to HadCRU, so GISS shows slightly faster warming than over the long-term trend of 0.018 degrees C per year, and HadCRU shows warming slightly slower."
235

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:00:47
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

"It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a).

"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif
236

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:01:00
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

"The period 2001-2007 is 0.21°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade."
237

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:01:17
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/hansen-t2.jpg

Look at the red line. Since 1998 the global five year mean temperature has continued to rise.
238

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:01:29
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/images/pr20070104.gif

Look at the blue line. That's the running mean.

Did it continue to rise after 1998?

Why yes. Yes it did.
239

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:01:44
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/gisscru.jpg

That's the HadCRU and GISS graphs ovelaid.

Both show that the global mean continued to rise after 1998.
240

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:01:58
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.csv

That's the HadCRU temperature data. It shows 1998 as the peak individual year. But look at the second column - the running mean. Since 1998 the average global temperature has risen significantly.
241

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:03:02
The NASA/GISS data for global temperatures;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The ten hottest years worldwide since 1880 were:

2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2004, 2001, 1997, 1995.
242

eyeswider,

again 11/04/2008 15:06:23

Now it's my turn to roll around laughing.


".....temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm

And


Roger Pielke Sr.

"Latest MSU Lower Tropospheric Temperature Values From The University Of Alabama At Huntsville - John Christy has provided us with the latest information on the global (GL), northern hemisphere (NH), southern hemisphere (SH) and tropical (Trpcs) values. For the last three months they are (in terms of anomaly)

GL NH SH Trpcs
Jan -0.05 -0.11 0.02 -0.21
Feb 0.02 0.25 -0.21 -0.33
Mar 0.09 0.43 -0.25 -0.49

The positive value in the northern hemisphere is dominated by the land areas. This large difference between the hemispheres (and the large negative values in the tropics) needs explanation, as none of the global models have predicted such a behavior that I am aware of."

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/march-2008-rss-global-temperature-anomaly-data-slightly-above-zero/

Also:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

243

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:06:27
The La Nina will dissipate in a few months and average global temperatures will continue to rise, as they have done over the last 10 years, and within the next few years we'll have another El Nino and the 1998 (HadCRU)record will be decisivley broken.

Then the denialists will have to pick that year as the year "global warming stopped."

Up until the next peak as global temperatures continue to rise.

And all the while we're not just increasing CO2 concentrations, we're still increasing the rate of emmissions, making it harder and harder to avoid catastrophic temperature rises.
244

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 15:07:04

Someone we are relying on is telling porkies.
245

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:08:54
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/climatechange.carbonemissions

'One of the world's leading climate scientists warns today that the EU and its international partners must urgently rethink targets for cutting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because of fears they have grossly underestimated the scale of the problem.

Hansen says the EU target of 550 parts per million of C02 - the most stringent in the world - should be slashed to 350ppm. He argues the cut is needed if "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed".'
246

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 15:08:54
#247 seanie

Lets come back to this in autumn 2009

The next eighteen months are going to be cool(in more than one sense of the word).

2010 may be as warm as last year but then watch out.

Colder sooner.


247

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 15:09:31


Oh yeah Hanson

'nuff said.

248

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 15:11:41


I think that even if you are a teenager neither of us will see a year even close to '98 while we are alive.

I have put good money on it(the next five year thing) with two bookies - no-one else would take it at any money(strangely).
249

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:25:19
A poorly worded quote from a BBC journalist?

Well that certainly trumps the data from the Hadley Institute of Climate Research and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

250

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:40:57
"I think that even if you are a teenager neither of us will see a year even close to '98 while we are alive."

What an utterly ridiculous thing to say. Even if you decide HadCRU is more reliable than GISS, which places 2005 and 2007 warmer than 1998, the differences between 1998 and the temperatures recorded for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, were all smaller than the margin of error. And that's without any strong El Nino forcing.

The continued upwards trend in global temperatures mean we've been achieving temperature records pretty much on a par with 1998, which experienced the strongest El Nino effect in a century, in the absence of significant or indeed any El Nino effect.

Look at the temperature graphs again. Look at how 1998 stands out in comparison to preceeding years. And notice how it doesn't stand out anything like as much in comparison to the last few years.

Average global temperatures are rising.
251

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:47:02
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Watch that red line climb.
252

seanie,

11/04/2008 15:50:52
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

"1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2 °C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and air temperatures over land. Had any recent years experienced such an El Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not associated with El Niño conditions that boosted the warmth of 1998.

Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 was 0.37 °C above this average, 0.11 °C warmer than 1999."
253

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 16:34:05

If only it were "just" a BBC journalist.

And you mean these people?



"Hansenize. Verb. To make a correction to historical records in such a way that the correction has the effect of increasing the error that the correction purports to correct.

Serious question: At what point does this become fraud?"

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/#more-1016
254

eyeswider,

hmmm 11/04/2008 16:36:52


The claim was that "the record 1998" year temp would be broken within 5 years.

Ain't gonna happen - no matter what "smoothed trend" "best estimate" or whatever you want to use.

We have seen the "best" weather of our lives and now we can only look forward to cool/cold.

Shame really as these old bones would much prefer warmth.

255

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 16:39:24
#255 seanie,

I beg to differ. Watch it fall from now on. Maybe in 2010 it my rise above this and next year but we have had the good stuff. Buy a sheepskin.
256

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 16:50:30

ENSOs over time.

Blame that on CO2. Or anything but solar imho.

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/

The trend is toward cooling. It may be 180 years before it gets like 1998/2005 again.


(as always the rider - barring natural events such as an inconvenient volcano)
257

seanie,

11/04/2008 17:11:51
We're going to see the warming trend continue. And it it's more likely to accelrate than decline given the increasing rate of CO2 emissions.

The recorded temperature rises over the last decade or so outstrip most of the climate models. It's getting hotter even quicker than expected.
258

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 17:14:27
#261 seanie

I really appreciate how you get here from there.

But.

You just "proved" the models are carp.

259

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 17:26:07
#262 Peer reviewed. You are not the first

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy/2007_Dougless_etal.pdf
260

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 17:33:07


Hmmm

CO2 "no longer a suspect"

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/devansco2.pdf
261

seanie,

11/04/2008 18:12:30
No. Just that models aren't perfect. And since nobody ever thought they were that's hardly a revelation.

The biggest problem with your position is it's almost total disconnection with reality.

Temperatures will continue to rise. Efforts to ignore that will become ever more laughable.
262

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 18:32:04
#265

"No. Just that models aren't perfect. And since nobody ever thought they were that's hardly a revelation."

But we can base trillions of dollars of carbon tax(lol sorry credits/whatever) on them and force bio-fuel into our vehicles based on them and let Al "earn" 100 million dollars in under 8 years based on them and ... well you get the point.

Yet anyone questioning the dogma is disconnected from reality.

...rigggght.


263

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 11/04/2008 18:48:02
Eyeswider #207: "The current physical reality is that CO2 ... is FALLING"

Eyeswider #231: "I imagine that is how the DROP in CO2 is being interpreted." [my emphasises]

Seanie #232: Provides link to global CO2/time graph which shows indubitable continuous RISE in CO2.

Eyeswider #233: "#232 seanie That was my point exactly. I just love the way you guys interpret data."

Doublethink is the act of simultaneously and fervently holding two mutually contradictory beliefs.

In the universe that Seanie and I inhabit, if CO2 is falling, then it is falling. If CO2 is rising, then it is rising. But Eyeswider lives in a Universe in which CO2 is both rising and falling at the same time.


264

eyeswider,

11/04/2008 19:02:27
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
265

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 11/04/2008 19:46:06
#268 eyeswider

Yes, we've seen that before. So, what do you believe? Is CO2 concentration in the atmosphere falling or rising? over what time scale? and what is the significance?

You brought the subject up. Explain yourself.
266

seanie,

11/04/2008 23:31:22
The point I raised about the climate models is significant. Given the complexity of factors influencing climate it's a difficult task to model, even though the basic physics is actually quite simple. And, to a large extent, scientists are aware of the areas where their understanding is deficient. Nevertheless numerous climate models have been created that can reproduce the climatic record pretty closely.

Re-run the 20th century, given all that we know about the physics involved, and we get a pretty good match.

But, and this is admittedly early days, the models that managed to pretty accurately recreate the 20th century seem to have underestimated the pace of warming this century. Temperatures appear to be higher than expected.

A possible reason for this is one of the known unknowns. Feedback. It's absolutely expected that higher temperatures driven by CO2 will have both positive and negative feedbacks but quite how they'd play out has always been uncertain.

Since recorded temperatures appear to be exceeding most of the models, we may be getting our first indications about the balance of feedback.

The warming effects of our increase in CO2 concentrations could be much greater than anticipated.



267

seanie,

11/04/2008 23:36:11
And, I know I should resist but, as for this;

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/devansco2.pdf

Well you can read Dr David Evans C.V. here;

http://www.sciencespeak.com/DavidEvans.doc

Reading that, I wouldn't trust him to tell me the time of day. But hey, each to his own.
268

Lord of All Mordor,

Contemplating The Nokia River 12/04/2008 19:23:57
Seanie,

"The point I raised about the climate models is significant. Given the complexity of factors influencing climate it's a difficult task to model, even though the basic physics is actually quite simple. And, to a large extent, scientists are aware of the areas where their understanding is deficient. Nevertheless numerous climate models have been created that can reproduce the climatic record pretty closely.

Re-run the 20th century, given all that we know about the physics involved, and we get a pretty good match."

1. Given that many of the climate models seem to assume an infinitely thick atmosphere, which is NOT the case, then the models are flawed.

2, It is relatively easy to produce a model which mimics the 20th Century = that's easy. My friend did that on an excel spreadsheet. Now mimic the last 500 or 1000 years. That's when you know you are getting close to understanding the factors involved.

3. Scientists who try to remodel the basic equations to take account of real conditions have their results played down.

If climate change stops, slows down or begins cooling, you will look silly at the very least.

"Temperatures will continue to rise. Efforts to ignore that will become ever more laughable." = you said

Anything other than continued warming and you will have the credibility of a politician. Yuu could even end up with the ultimate credibility of Al Gore.

Slioch has at least an alternative position if the world doesn not keep warming. AGW is/was there BUT the sun or something else changed. (I got it wrong somewhere because these other factors were stronger than AGW and this I read in post 122 which I assume is an accurate quote. Skioch did not dispute its accuracy)

""We will see if warming resumes after the current La Nina declines (the latter appears to be weakening slightly). If warming doesn't resume then it will be necessary to find other explanations: "

269

Lord of All Mordor,

Contemplating The Nokia River 12/04/2008 19:33:24
I also found this on several blogs and webssites this morning.

"We have this story from the Houston Chronicle:

One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand. The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, this week unveiled a novel technique for predicting hurricane activity.

The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.

The research, appearing in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is all the more remarkable coming from Emanuel, a highly visible leader in his field and long an ardent proponent of a link between global warming and much stronger hurricanes. His changing views could influence other scientists.

“The results surprised me,” Emanuel said of his work, adding that global warming may still play a role in raising the intensity of hurricanes but what that role is remains far from certain."

Prester John and Slioch are right. The few next years should show us either the AGW position reinforced or it will unravel. However, from the money I see going to AGW zealots, if their position is wrong, it may rake a lot of time to for them to recant their position.

Seanie, you are right in one way. The world's climate is seriously complicated. I think that 'the global warming balloon as the major cause' needs to be punctured so that serious research can begin without prejudice.
270

MS,

Railway station, about 30 minutes till departure 12/04/2008 19:50:03
Same old, same old. Much noise, very little light. Wish I'd had more time to read them all. Nothing much new that I can see...................................

Hail Slioch, long time no see - longer time till next. Hope you're well. You seem to be posting as vociferously as ever.

What's this though Slioch ? When I postulated that other factors could prove very relevant, you were dismissive at the very least. You seem to have moved, marginally at the very least, towards mine if 272 is correct. NB : I have kept a web-link so I can see your response sometime in the future.

The statement I have always made is :

"To what extent can / does human activity affect possible climate change ?" Very few are addressing this question.

Liked the point about weather stations earlier. I have seen several that would not make the grade in a primary school, never mind an USHCN Station. Can see that if even a moderate number are not properly located they could have an adverse affect of statistics.

Time to go: Northern Territories are calling.
271

seanie,

14/04/2008 00:24:02
#272 "If climate change stops, slows down or begins cooling, you will look silly at the very least."

I'd also be delighted,.

But I very much fear I'll neither look silly nor be delighted.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

"Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate. If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels to feed a growing appetite for energy-intensive life styles, we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of prior human history. The eventual response to doubling preindustrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free planet."

"Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions,for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects."

"The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO2, is herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable."
272

seanie,

14/04/2008 00:25:35
What was that last bit again?

"The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable."

Yeah.

That's about right.
273

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/04/2008 09:18:49
#276 seanie

Correct.

And for the record, though I should not have to repeat it: with respect to MS's reference to "other factors could prove very relevant" and Lord of all Mordor's reference to "Slioch has at least an alternative position".

There is no conflict between the fact that the warming of the last thirty years or so cannot be accounted for without taking anthropogenic greenhouse gases into account, and the utterly obvious fact that "other factors" (the sun, volcanoes, natural greenhouse gases etc.) are also taken into account in such calculations. One could not possibly do such a calculation without taking "other factors" into account. The implication that one could is ridiculous.

Equally, whilst the recent past and the present show this rapid, human induced, warming, (and there is NO evidence that has come to an end), it is also utterly obvious that if something changes to these "other factors" in the future (the sun dimming or a large volcano erupting for example) then this could effect the future course of climate change. Just don't hold your breath.
274

cgrant,

tyler 18/04/2008 15:18:11
Scientists at NASA say that the optimum CO2 concentration is about 340 ppm Other Scientests have said the the concentration of 1000 ppm is the optimum for plant life.

The problem with Global warming theory is just that, Theory. Theory is the product of guesses from very small bit of factual data.

We have not experienced the results of significantly higher Co2 levels in our recorded history.

How about this for a theory? The sun is in a low cycle and the globe will be Cooling. Maybe we should encourage higher CO2 levels to keep the temperature stable?

One part of this whole dialog is fact. They will collect REAL moneys to combat this imaginary threat.
275

cgrant,

tyler 18/04/2008 15:35:22
Let me add a little history to this discussion.
DDT was banned because a respected scientist claimed that the substance had long term desasterous effects on the environment and bird populations.

About 2 years after the ban, proof came out that all or most of this scientist's claims were without merit. Polititians had gottten on the bandwagon though and were not about to admit they had made a mistake.

Fast forward twenty or so years.
When history proved that over a hundred million people had died from Malaria that could have been avoided had DDT been in use, This same scientist made the comment that "the world is over populated and this action proved to be a very effective form of birth contol in the third world.

When the enormous tax burden the global warming pundants are proposing colapses our economies and hundreds of millions of the worlds poor die of starvation, man's footprint will decrease and they will claim a victory in their efforts to affect the environment.
276

Hickory,

US 28/04/2008 14:35:50
Aye, what will Al Gore sale to ye now? Carbon additives? It's all a game to get cash. Next will be the envasion of the green men from the planet Zenxia. Give Al some cash and he will buy them all tickets home..... with a little something for himself.
277

The wilkman,

Isle of Skye 29/04/2008 00:19:44
When the deniers quote some scientist as backing them up it's worth checking it out. Each time I've done so so far there's been something not right about the champion they propose. Take this post:

28
eyeswider,
05/04/2008 09:34:48
Climate Scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer, former director the US Weather Satellite Service, "Good evidence confirms that current warming is mostly part of a natural climate cycle, most likely driven by the sun. The available data show that the human contribution from greenhouse gases is not detectable and must be insignificant. It is a non-problem. Trying to mitigate a natural warming (or cooling) is futile and a big waste of money better spent on real societal problems."

I checked him out and the poor old guy was born in 1924. He also believes that passive smoking has negligable effect and that CFC's have nothing to do with ozone depletion. It turns out that his original degree in in electronic engineering, that he appears to have got involved with atmospheric science through designing devices that measure gases in the atmosphere. He appears to have been unable to take in what was being discovered as he got into his seventies and eighties, possibly through not having had a grounding in climate sciences in the first place.
278

The wilkman,

Isle of Skye 29/04/2008 00:34:53
The bit below is fantasy. The effects of DDT on bird life is absolutely clear (thinning eggshells in particular). After it was banned a slow recovery happened, painstakingly recorded. Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" was the first book dealing with environmental problems that I read (in the '60s) and I've followed the ornithological debate for the fourty years since.

The mosquitoes, being simpler organisms, would just have evolved immunity.

We've drifted into a war with the rest of the biosphere, we're forgetting that we're part of it. Just listen to the people trying to make you look up and round and far, instead of just a decade or two or three in front of you.

279
cgrant,
tyler
DDT was banned because a respected scientist claimed that the substance had long term desasterous effects on the environment and bird populations.

About 2 years after the ban, proof came out that all or most of this scientist's claims were without merit. Polititians had gottten on the bandwagon though and were not about to admit they had made a mistake.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.