SleepyJean

I didn't know this about CO2 (the law of diminishing returns as Pete succinctly put it). I had previously been thinking along the lines of something on a small scale not necessarily behaving in the same way on a large scale (chaos as opposed to fractals, I believe...do correct me if I'm wrong). Some of the maths/physics is so far beyond what I was able to grasp at school (I failed my A-level maths :S) that I think I will have to go and learn some in order to properly understand what is going on. Put it like this, I saw an Equinox once about the nature of space/time, and I understood it so clearly at the time that I was able to picture it clearly. Sadly, within minutes of the program finishing all I was left with was the knowledge that space and time are the same thing and it's round. If I only had the maths to describe it properly....

The Mail has definitely mis-interpreted the Q&A, I think. They say: "He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not. " The question they seem to be referring to is this one: "D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre." And the response they appear to have mis-construed is this: " Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. " But Prof. Jones goes on to say: "Combining ... these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period. " (Obviously you know where his full response is). As I had only read the news report, I needed to see the BBC interview to find out what was actually said. Like many other people would, I accepted at first that he had said the '75-'98 warming was natural. It is only on reading what he actually said (presumably what he actually said but see the footnote at the bottom of the BBC report), that I have realised this is incorrect. At last reporters are asking actual scientists actual questions about the actual science (even if it does then go on to be mis-reported further down the line). So some good is coming of all the recent scandal.

The lost emails data comments are in the Daily Mail (or Mail on Sunday?) report here: http://www.dailymail...-organised.html Specifically: "The academic at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble 'keeping track' of the information.Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'. The data is crucial to the famous 'hockey stick graph' used by climate change advocates to support the theory. " Edit: Ah, found out where this came from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm Seperate report by the same journalist/science correspondent.

There was an article in the paper the other day about water vapour as a major greenhouse gas and I remembered that somewhere on this thread (or the original LI thread) someone (Captain Bobski?) had suggested water vapour but not know how to get figures for it. I would guess you areralready aware of this and if you are interested in it for your LI you'll have looked it up and everything, but I thought it was interesting because it was something I didn't know until I read the LI thread! And the LI is so interesting I thought it would be nice if it didn't drop off the bottom of the page

Right, just been reading all about Milankovitch cycles. I think I've forgotten it already Erm, we are in a nearly circular orbit at the minute, but this is on the "outwards" phase and will become increasingly elliptical (with increasing difference between summer and winter temperatures). We are about halfway on axial tilt (the up and down of the equator?) and the angle is getting lower, so this is decreasing the difference between summer and winter temperatures? And axial precession means that at present the southern hemisphere has a bigger difference between summer and winter temperatures than the northern hemisphere does. So we are about halfway between ice ages at the minute, with no hint that the atmosphere should be cooling! Are we just before or just after the warmest point of the cycle? I would guess that we are just after the warmest point, but that these processes are long term so any reduction on temperatures on the basis of these particular cycles would be on a minute scale measurable possibly only over decades or even centuries. However, the ice core and paleogeological records would seem to indicate that the current warmth of the planet is something that only ever lasts a few thousand years and that the majority of the time the planet is much cooler (although not always technically in an ice age)? Looking at the Vostok ice core graphs, the temperature (global?) is only above 0 for a maximum of about 15,000 years at a time and is below 0 for around 100,000 years at a time. At present we have been mostly above 0 for about 15,000 years now and so we might expect to be starting to cool. According to the modern temperature record we are not cooling but in fact still warming. So this is the basis of global warming theory, perhaps? Right, so that is where it is for me, if I have understood correctly. I haven't even looked at co2 or any other factors yet, just the very basics. One thing that does stand out to me, though, looking at the graphs, is that the wave of the graphs seems to increase in size with each cycle, generally speaking (obviously it has some variation but the general pattern is for longer, deeper waves) So there is the possibility that the increased length of this warm phase is within the "norm". But I would be looking at the fact that a return to lower temperatures tends to be relatively abrupt, just as the initial warming does. So if we are responsible for the warming things could theoretically just get hotter and hotter, but if the earth has in-built safety mechanisms (or this is naturally a longer cycle), we could find ourselves in a fairly abrupt cooling situation. So we need contingency plans for either situation and it all starts and ends with alternative fuel sources that don't involve bio-fuels. And it still doesn't explain why the global temperature cools ahead of the reduction in co2...

Bother, just lost a long and impassioned post. The short version: there is simply no way that either side of the argument is going to trust or listen to the other side at this point in time because everyone believes everyone else to be a rampant warmist/rabid denier. We would first have to agree that a particular person is impartial enough to hold the enquiry to begin with!!

Try as I might I can't find a way of responding to this that doesn't make me sound like a flat-earth conspiracy-theory uber denialist. Even though I am merely moderately sceptical about the causes of the warming, not even of the warming itself. Amazing

They certainly didn't dumb down the reports in those days, did they? A comet these days would not be reported with phrases like, "The tail stretched in a curve beyond the alpha in Pegasus, and could be faintly defined beyond 20 degrees." Wonderful stuff, thankyou.

I particularly like "creating your own reality." If only life were that easy......

Thanks, Pete But I didn't think it was Gray-Wolf who had posted the paper? I did click on the link to the front page of the website - this is what it says about them.... 'nuff said, methinks ;-) "Halexandria is a Synthesis of new physics, sacred geometry, ancient and modern history, multiple universes & realities, consciousness, the Ha Qabala and ORME, extraterrestrials, corporate rule and politics, law, order and entropy, trial by jury, astronomy, monetary policy, scientific anomalies, religion and spirituality, and a whole host of other subjects ranging from astrology and astrophysics to superstrings and sonoluminesence to biblical and geologic histories to numerology, the Tarot, and creating your own reality. (BTW, for those with Internet Explorer, ialexandriah is written in the form that shows an attempt at bridging of the Age of Pisces (i, capital H) and the Age of Aquarius (h, small i ). Otherwise the fonts don't quite translate. Sigh.) "

Obviously been following this in the papers, it's pretty inescapeable at the minute, but I do have an observation/query. Now, isn't it right that when someone comes up with a scientific theory, they usually publish, with their hypothesis/theory, all the data and methods that they have used to come up with their conclusions. Then other scientists go off and examine the data and repeat the experiments/analysis and then agree or disagree with the original theory. Thus a theory is proven or disproven. A second scientist might say, "Oh I say old chap, you've actually made a mistake in your statiostical results analysis here and here and so the result is your experiment/method does not in fact support your theory of xyz." Or he might say that actually, yes, this does appear to prove xyz and he is going to devide another experiment to back it up as further evidence. So that's how it has worked for decades, correct me if I'm wrong (or over-simplifying). Okay, so that established, how can it be said that AGW is proven, done and dusted, when the data and methods haven't been published and results reproduced independently by other scientists? They have said, "let them go and get their own data", but this is against scientific method, because to see what might have gone wrong in the analysis you need to see the original information and start from exactly the same place as the original theorist. If this is right, then in order for AGW to become a proven theory, the original data and methods need to be published and re-analysed by other scientists, right down to the basic raw data and the methods used to adjust it preparatory to statistical analysis. And if that had been done in the first place there would never have been any need for the FOI requests. Obviously if there is some data used that has come from private establishements that do not want it passed on, then that would have to be with-held, or permission asked from the original owners of the data. However, as I understand it 95% of the data could (and therefore should) have been made available for peer-review, and 95% is quite enough for a statistical agreement. I don't understand why they have been "hiding" all of this information, because science is about sharing information and having others look at it all and go, "Oooh, I say, you're on to something there." Or not. But why be afraid of the not? Wouldn't it be a huge relief if it actually turned out that you'd made a huge mistake and actually mann wasn't causing massive global warming that was going to destroy the planet? Or is scientific career over if you make one mistake in one paper? Still, if they have broken the law it seems daft that they can't be prosecuted. This must be the only law that is only effective for 6 months. A bit of stalling and you're scot-free. Must be to protect the government then.....

"These effects include everything from massive disruptions in electronic or electromagnetic communications during heightened sunspot activity to correlations between sunspot activity and popular revolutions and uprisings. In the latter case, Margaret Thatcher arrived and departed from 10 Downing Street at peak periods in the 11.25 year sunspot cycle [13]." I'm sorry, I didn't actually read it properly. I have to admit to skimming. But this is the point where I had to stop even skimming. Sunspot activity linked to Margaret Thatcher's time in office? This kind of things destroys the credibility of those trying to genuinely look at sunspot activity in a scientific manner. "The sun made me vote Tory last time and now it's made me vote Labour!" I don't think so.....sorry. That's not to say that I don't believe that the sun has a massive influence on us. The relationship between the sun and the earth provides the very atmosphere we are able to exist in. The whole thing, magnetism, radiation, heat, light, is obviously the main supporter and driver of global climate. But to say it influences the rise and fall of leaders of individual countries is a bit too astrological. Until a scientific basis for astrology is found this just makes the whole paper laughable really. Unless that is what the paper is trying to suggest.

I have a question. If the Milankovitch Cycles cause initial warming which causes a release of oceanic co2 which in turn increases and drives further warming, what is it that causes the temperature to decline prior to the fall in co2? The Milankovitch Cycle? If this is the case, where are we in the Milankovitch Cycle? When can we expect the earth to start to return to its normal temperature zone (ie an ice age?) And is co2 higher now than it has ever been? (which looks like 300ppm, but has any possible "loss of data" been taken into account on these graphs - degradation of the gas samples in the ice cores for example. We are talking about 400,000 years, after all). I realise these are probably very basic questions, but I read the reports above and while I had never seen it in quite that way before it still has questions for me. If you could point me to websites or papers that can answer them that would be great. Thankyou, SJ

Thanks Andy. I wasn't at all upset by the lack of response to my wildly "out there" suggestion, lol. I just thought I'd put it in there in response to Roger questioning why he had an apparent weakening of his signal on a semi-regular basis. If I read his theory right, then solar energy affects our climate. Perturbations of that solar energy would weaken the effect, and something that regularly perturbs the space around us might be the regular type of comets, like Halley's etc. But I could of course be just a nut with weird ideas, I'm quite happy to go with that and therefore if my suggestion doesn't merit a response then fair enough. Anyway, what's a daydream believer to do....? ;-) SJ

I know it's been a while, just catching up on the thread, but I had to laugh. Ultimately didn't everything come from space? There are scientists out there who sidestep the question of how life began by suggesating that it was brought to earth by meteors! I was just grasping at straws, really, but is it not possible that if solar radiation is a main driver of the atmosphere and climate, then perturbations in the radiation caused by, for example, regular but infrequent comets, might have some effect. Probably only to the same sort of level as CO2 at most, but if we want to look at all of the possibilities then why not? I said the comment might merely reflect my lack of understanding, and apparently it does Edit: Since the comment was otherwise totally ignored it was obviously not a useful suggestion. Fair enough

I think Roger was showing why people in Canada are more sceptical, because if we had weather like that I think we'd be sceptical too. I know a lot more people I know started to question global warming this year, after 18 inches of snow was dumped one night in February and then followed by the very-much-not-barbeque summer. People do not see climate, they see weather, which is only a microcosm, or expression, of climate. That's the way I read what he said, anyway.

Comets? Combinations of comets? Meteors/Asteroids (never did quite sort out which was which). These are things which have irregular shaped orbits which could perhaps interfere with the effects of the more regular-shaped planetary orbits and relationships, but of course it is difficult to trace records of comets as they can have such a long orbit. Just a thought, however, and may reflect my lack of understanding more than my understanding of your theory.

What I don't get is if the Met Office can't even predict the weather now (which has happened a number of times in my recollection), and get the seasonal forecasts wrong on a regular basis, why does everyone seem to trust their forecasts for 20 or 30 years hence? I can't get my head around that. I do know that "weather is not the same as climate", but to me that is not the case. Weather is climate on a local basis, surely. Like a smaller scale version. I'll put my ear defenders and body armour on now, shall I? I bet I will get it pointed out to me why I am so wrong.

I don't care what the graphs show, I believe there has been warming. I am just a little sceptical about the causes of said warming, and there are questions emerging about whether the warming is continuing at present. However, the graph did show the data from 5 stations, much of it overlapping. That was WUWTs justification for adjusting the temperature before 1941 rather than after, when it was backed up with extremely similar data from other stations. Of course they are a cynic site and so will be biased in the anti AGW direction, which is why I read it very carefully, to make sure that they were saying what I thought they were saying and that it seemed correct. Of course that is based on what they are showing us, and it could all be fabricated of at least tweaked in the cynics favour....

Hello Captain Bobski, I was always a bit hazy on the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, but now that I look, hypo means below, thesis is obvious, so hypothesis means "sub-theory"....ish. So it hasn't even made theory yet? Blimey

Those are the graphs we all want to see, I think. Unadjusted, raw data. With notations as to changes in position of stations etc. An explanation of the adjustments made to produce the graphs we are all familiar with. Why can the scientists not do this, and have their work properly peer-reviewed. That is science. Someone comes up with a theory, others, using the same basics, try to reproduce the results. The theory is proved or disproved on the basis of reproduceability. If only the adjusted data is released then others will obvioulsy be much more likley to reach the same conclusions. The Theory of AGW is thus proven! Actually isn't that the big problem here; all things in science are called a theory until proven, at which point they become a law. Einstein's theories, Newton's laws. AGW should rightly be called the Theory of AGW but of course that word, theory, introduces uncertainty in non-scientists and so has been dropped. At least no-one has had the gall to start calling it the Law of AGW. Ah, well, it'll be interesting to see the met-o data - and how many weather stations have been subsumed by conurbation over the decades. If the station hasn't moved, would they make adjustments? We'll see, I suppose....

I'll have to have a look at that. What about other proxies, though. Tree ring data can't go back for more than a few thousand years in any more than a patchy way (fossilised and petrified trees aside, it relies on the living, doesn't it. Well, and ancient timbers and stuff), but still the proxy records go back tens and hundreds of thousands of years. So have they also been compared to modern measurements, since the correlation between tree ring data and temperature seems uncertain? I will look up global dimming in the morning - I have heard of it, of course. It really came to notice after 9/11 although I daresay some scientist or other had noted and probably even studied it before then. Anyway, off to deal with other stuff.... Thankyou for your patient answers everyone

I told you I was stoopid But why don't the proxies fit the measured temperatures post 1960? What could cause that kind of anomoly? It is a very important question, surely, because either the temperatures pre-60s are wrong or the figures post-60s are wrong. Which set of data is it, and does it need adjusting upwards or downwards?

Gosh, so tree rings are actually a better proxy for sun-spot data! Well that would enable a study of the effects of solar cyles on global climate at any rate, something I understand hasn't been well-studied because of a lack of proxies. If this tree-ring study shows good correlation then a proxy has been found - but it means they are rubbish for temperature data! Interesting the proxy data didn't match physical temperature readings post 1960. Isn''t that basically the point where AGW is supposed to have taken off? I would think that would make people question their data, surely? At least make them ask why it doesn't match? Personally I would wonder what I'd done wrong and re-check all my figures....