Baylor

Given that none of these tremors recorded more than 2 on the richter scale it is pushing the realms of alarmism to suggest these were earthquakes. What may or may not have been attributable to this action would have felt much like a lorry driving past your house at the most. I would suggest that the shifting of small faults due to fracking is not capapable of producing the levels of energy generated by tectonic forces, which is almost certainly the cause of the northern Italy earthquakes.

Sorry, but where did you get the figure pertaining to 14 mya permafrost? Not sure there is any research to suggest permafrost of that age any where in the world (though I may be wrong).

In fact not just Bodmin Moor but also significant snow at lower levels. I work in St Austell and lived in Golant near fowey (at the time), work was shut at midday (I work for an educational establishment) and had to leave car at top of the hill into golant. It started to snow at about 10:00am (sporadically) and then set in from 11:00, not relenting until about 16:00. Rugby the next day was cancelled due to snow on the pitch, and I was using snow (though not the yellow variety!) to chill my G&Ts on the sunday evening. I remember thinking how long it was since last time it snowed as on the previous occassion I had hair and did not have to endure the horror of ice cream head, which occurred this time round. The cold air that followed the snow meant that my parents still had snow (laying) in their garden well into the following week.

Not at work today, Snow day called with my college being shut. Plenty of snow lying around the Fowey/St Austell area of Cornwall; good times

With Hiya on this. Dev can you state precisely what it is when you are referring to "credibility being stretched" . The paper refers back to some fairly basic physical constants. If anyone is being closed mind in this respect it is you. I'm not asking you to believe what is written, but accept that it is a valid concern. If there is a saturation rate of Co2 that suggests certain parameters (with relation to current and future amounts of Co2) which go against the idea of Co2 as the major climate driver it is suggested to be (given the time scale and amounts predicted), then these are issues that need to be addressed or voiced. Its not simply a case of 'deniers' trying last gasp tatics to 'win' the argument, it is a valid question and concern with the theory.

I have already added a post that offers another viewpoint on the relationship of Co2 and temperature. As previously stated, I have no issue with Co2 being a greenhouse gas, but I do take issue to the predicted rates of change of temperature and the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere. No issue with the science at all, more and issue with what is predicted and the methods of prediction.

What about the argument that suggests the amount of Co2 has not risen substantially enough to have led to predicted temperature rises (or is this an outdated technical argument)? Simple physics suggest for there to be a linear rise in temperature there needs to be a exponential rise in Co2. This has not occurred, currently Co2 levels are about 37% higher than pre-industrial times, and subsequently there has been a .57 degrees C rise in temperature. If the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere was to increase by 100% there would be an increase in global temperature of 1.85 degrees C, and so on and so forth. Note this does not deny the relationship of Co2 and temperature, but simply places far less emphasis on the effects of the relatively small amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere, and thus the degree of warming it is likely to cause. The beauty of this method as well is that it can be reproduced by anyone with a simple grasp of calculus and is based on real/empirical data and values. The issues that so called denialists have are that great deals of the catastrophic predictions of the past based on the best evidence of the time have failed to materialise. Club of Rome, Peak Oil etc, these (or so we are told) were based on consensus at the time and thus had to be true, anyone who stated that population might be able to support itself with regards food supply, or that oil wasn't running out was labelled as a (guess what) denier. I am also interested as to the reasons that the word 'denier' is used to describe sceptics (along with Contrarians), is this not a purposely inflammatory statement with huge connotations? It is a bit much to label ALL sceptics as being deniers, and is the equivalent of sceptics labelling all believers as sensationalists, Zealots or even fundamentalists; obviously unacceptable terms with regards any scientific debate.

Hi Dev, I will try to address some points. The predicted rise in temperature for a doubling of CO2 (yet to be reached of course, no one has predicted 'catastrophic ' warming by 2009!) No, and neither did I. My point is that the rate of absorbtion and the effect of C02 on the atmosphere is bradly logarithmic. The dire predictions being made do not seem to take into account the time it would take for Co2 to double, (far longer than is sometimes stated). Feedback. Warm the atmosphere a little with CO2 and, because the atmosphere is warmer, it can hold more water vapour. Water vapour is a potent ghg +ve feedback. True, and that is one example of positive feedback; however I stated that there are also many types of feedback. More water vapour= more precipitation potential, this could lead to more snow in cold areas, that could lead to greater albedo. Effect = localised cooling. Now this is a very simple example of feedback (and I appreciate it is flawed as was the example quoted, I'm just comparing like for like) that could occur given the situation. I am not saying that this will override other feedback mechanisms, but should be taken into account when talking about feedback; it is not all positive. Also with regards extrapolating Co2 back until there is none in the atmosphere. Co2 is not the only greenhouse gas on the planet; if it were the main climate driver than maybe runaway cooling could occur if it was removed altogether; however if it is not the main climate driver then the effects of either removing it all together or increasing it exponentially are minimal, even taking into account possible feedback mechanisms.

Indeed, feedback is an important issue, but that is asssumiing all the feedback is positive, and this is not the case. This issue of the logarithmic behaviour of Co2 and temp has always been one of the most contentious areas for me. Currently there has been a 37% increase in Co2 since pre-industrial times, nowhere near enough to be talking about the catastrophic rises in temperature that are being predicted.

Hi Iceberg, Just to pick up on a point; we can read what carbon sinks were available as they appear preserved as either large carbonate deposits or coal/petroleum deposits. The problem though is that those we can observe only make up a small sample as to those that might have been available; however certain predicions can be based on those we can observe, and the science of understanding these indicators is improving all the time. Therefore, whilst incomplete, there is still plenty that can be drawn from the evidence available in the stratigraphic column.

Thanks for the clarification Iceberg.

Once again Gray Wolf, I have no issue with the science of CO2 and temperature; I am well aware of the sequences that led to carbonate shelf deposition, anoxic black shale deposition (incidently due to one of the most dangerous aspects of runaway global warming; the neutralising of the thermo-haline circulation system), and mega fauna growth and abundance of vegetation. I am aware of the huge outpourings of lava due to mantle pluming in the Deccan traps (could also be a side affect or cause of India's eventual collision with Asia) and how this along with the general state of the atmosphere may have had a large part to play in the KT extinction event; but (and I know I am being a bit like a dog with a chew toy ), I fail to see how stating these facts will somehow alleviate my fears with regards the sensitivity of the models to the impact of CO2 at current levels on our atmosphere. Another point I would like to raise is that it is widely accepted that the ENSO event of 1998 was a bit of an outlier with regards to global temperature; what I would like to know is to what extent the build up to that event may have affected the thirty year average? I appreciate that a mean average has to include extremes from either side of the scale, but are there not qustions that can be asked with regards the 1970-2000 average, if for a sizable amount of the time the temperature of the planet was responding to a huge ENSO effect. Incidently, what question is it that you like me to ask in five years: Whether the models are correct? Or Whether the Climate systems/differences between the poles and tropics have lessened? Always happy to ask, as (I'm sure you will agree) science is built on enquiry.

Ok Gray Wolf, a classic response in that you have published a lot of unrelated material that doesn't actually answer my point. Your answer doesn't actually state why current models using known data produce absurd results!!! Also if you want to talk about about carbonate shelf formation then please put it into context, there is no point making a statement to the ends Cretaceous.....time of the white cliffs of Dover, I wonder where all of that carbonate came from When it is completely unrelated to the point I was making. However avoiding that point I will try to address the slightly verbose post of your's. Most models show that the effect will be greatest at high latitudes (near the poles) where yearly temperatures could be as much as 16oC warmer than present. Absolutely, but what the models fail to cope with and suggest, is that if such a warming should occur, then the Continental landmasses would have been considerably warmer as well. I.E. there would be even greater warming (even relatively speaking) at the equator than at the poles. The Co2 content wasn't just a little higher in the Cretaceous, it was up to 16 times higher, plug the same details into the models and you get a run away scenario that can not have been. Global Precipitation changes - A warmer atmosphere will lead to increased evaporation from surface waters and result in higher amounts of precipitation. The equatorial regions will be wetter than present, while the interior portions of continents will become warmer and drier than present. Changes in vegetation patterns - because rainfall will distributed differently, vegetation will have to adjust to the new conditions. Mid latitude regions are likely to be more drought prone, while higher latitude regions will be somewhat wetter and warmer than normal, resulting in a shift in agricultural patterns. Increased storminess - A warmer, wetter atmosphere will favor tropical storm development. Hurricanes will be stronger and more frequent. Changes in Ice patterns. - Due to higher temperatures, ice in mountain glaciers will melt. But, because more water will be evaporated from the oceans, more precipitation will reach the polar ice sheets causing them to grow. Reduction of sea ice - Sea ice will be greatly reduced to the increased temperatures at the high latitudes, particularly in the northern hemisphere where there is more abundant sea ice. Ice has a high albedo (reflectivity), and thus reduction of ice will reduce the albedo of the Earth and less solar radiation will be reflected back into space, thus enhancing the warming effect. Thawing of frozen ground - Currently much of the ground at high latitudes remains frozen all year. Increased temperatures will cause much of this ground to thaw. Organic compounds and gas hydrates in the frozen ground will be subject to decay, releasing more methane into the atmosphere and enhancing the greenhouse effect. Ecosystems and human structures currently built on frozen ground will have to adjust. Rise of sea level - Warming the oceans results in expansion of water and thus increases the volume of water in the oceans. Along with melting of mountain glaciers and reduction in sea ice, this will cause sea level to rise and flood coastal zones, where much of the world's population currently resides. Changes in the hydrologic cycle - With new patterns of precipitation changes in stream flow and groundwater level will be expected. Decomposition of organic matter in soil - With increasing temperatures of the atmosphere the rate of decay of organic material in soils will be greatly accelerated. This will result in release of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere and enhance the greenhouse effect Global Warming in the Past From out study of glaciations in the past we know that climate can change as result of natural processes, both becoming warmer and colder than present. Although these climatic fluctuations appear to be caused by eccentricities in the Earth's orbit, it is interesting to note that during glaciations in the past the concentrations of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere were lower, atmospheric dust was higher, and the Earth's albedo was higher, all of these factors could have contributed to cooler climates. Similarly, during past interglacial episodes, the atmosphere contained less dust, higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, and the Earth had a lower albedo, all of which contribute to warmer climates. The questions that remain to be answered are: Are there higher concentrations of greenhouse gases and lower dust concentrations in the atmosphere due to the warmer temperatures or did they cause the warmer temperatures? Are these differences simply due to orbital variations, or is there some other natural self regulating process that allows for cycles? How do human affect these cycles? All viable suggestions as to what may happen if run away global warming occurs, but largely irrelevent to the point I was making. :wacko: Over the past 100 million years, geologists have been able to reconstruct CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and average atmospheric temperature based on a wide variety of geologic and geochemical evidence. From this reconstruction, it appears that temperature was much higher than present during the Mid-Cretaceous, during the Eocene, and during the Pliocene. We will next look at what might have caused these periods of global warming Temperatures were much higher, but by using the models that we use today, with the known data from then, the temperatures would not have been able to sustain life, unless you are suggesting that somehow the biological process has changed since then? And this remains my point; as we have evidence that points towards periods of hot house earth, and we know the C02 concentration, why then if you use the known data, with the current models do we get a ridiculous figure that we know can't have been the case. Average temperature was about 25C in the cretaceous, but the models we currently use would have us believe that the corresponding Co2 would have led to temperatures of 45C to 50C. My concern as already posted, is that the models we currently use not only can not deal with the known data but are too quick to over emphasis the current data. This is the point I was making: I am well aware of all the other points you made but I fail to see the relevance with the concern I was raising.

I must admit that it is the model projections that bother me (to a certain degree). There is very little doubt in the basic mechanisms with regards to Carbon dioxide and heating. However when past climate data is entered into the models to predict climate behaviour, they give us temperatures far higher than those that actually existed. In particular this is with reference to the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere during the Cretaceous. Based on our current models and the estimated amount of Co2 at those times (x16 pre industrial amounts), average temperature for the planet should have been pushing 50C at the eqatorial landmasses; however the evidence does not back this up in anyway shape or form, both geologicaly or biologically. I don't doubt the affect that Co2 could have on the atmosphere, but I do have a problem with the models; I just don't feel that they are able to match the sheer complexities of the climate systems of this planet to be of much use whatsoever.

Thank you for your prompt reply (though I should be writing some lectures rather than replying ). One more question, could it not be that we are the beginning of a cooling trend? After all, don't these things generally start quite slowely, but grow more exponential as time passes and feed back mechanisms begin to take hold? I.E Global temperature rise over the last thirty years started slowly but increased almost eponentially in the last 10 years of the thirty year period before flattening out. Could this not be about to happen in the other direction? I'm not trying to labour a point here just trying to get to the bottom of a bottomless well!!

[What does this mean, well we will have to put up with a few more silly comments about global cooling from people that seem unable to grasp medium term climate variability but unfortunately the the evidence of the warming trend won't be far away and by this time next year it's quite likely we will be talking about record high months again and argueing about whether or not there is a global conspiracy to frig the temperature data......

The mt office did not predict a below average december, they said cooler and closer to average than recent years, but they certainly did not predict a cooler than average december.

Hi Guys, Just to address a point of order. Whilst I don't agree with the overall tone of the thread, the idea that extremes of the expected weather aren't as important/news worthy as unexpected weather, and thus unreported is not true. The BBC have run countless stories about larger hurricanes in the hurricane season, or hotter than expected summers in summer, and their apparent link to global warming; however what they never do is show how these extremes in themselves help to prove global warming. It is an easier image to transfer into a viewers mind with regards global warming, when a hot time of year is even hotter than expected or a windy time of year is even windier than expected, than if a cold time of the year is even colder. Lets not forget the record breaking cold that Moscow experienced a few years ago when the lowest ever recorded temperature was equalled for a sustained period of time, or indeed the fact that the Alps are experiencing one of the best starts to the Ski season in recent time. Extremes of expected/seasonal weather are used all the time by the media to furthur the understanding of global warming/climate change.