General Climate Change Discussion

[Solar Cycles]

Have a look at the quantum nature of the C-O and C-H chemical bonds, Solar...The knowledge might help you understand? And, Solar, rhetoric and ad hominum attacks are not proof, either!

Hi G_W. How are you keeping?

I love cold winters mate. I'd love to see another one now. But facts are facts: the globe has warmed over recent decades, and maybe I'll never see another 1963. As Johnny Cash might say if he were still with us: I don't like it, but I guess things happen that way?

Anyway, back on topic. I don't see how the BBC is biased...The way this is going, Sir David Attenburgh (?) will be doind a 'Flat Planet' series just to create some balance?

Sorry but that does not prove that CO2 drives our temperature, if so why can no one find the elusive greenhouse signature, that should be apparent over the tropics!

[Methuselah]

Sorry but that does not prove that CO2 drives our temperature, if so why can no one find the elusive greenhouse signature, that should be apparent over the tropics!

Why the tropics?

[Solar Cycles]

Why the tropics?

Because that's where we should be seeing any signature, but I'm sure you are aware of this already Peter!

[Gray-Wolf]

We have been noting the same level of warming over the Tropics (now we use the instrumentation correctly) Though the 'ironing out' of the data issues was newsworthy in 2003/4 the contrarians don't seem to have caught up yet!

We now use the 'thermal drift' of the weather balloons to check temp/trends and ,hey presto, the tropics are warming nicely with the rest of us.....

[ghrud]

We have been noting the same level of warming over the Tropics (now we use the instrumentation correctly) Though the 'ironing out' of the data issues was newsworthy in 2003/4 the contrarians don't seem to have caught up yet!

We now use the 'thermal drift' of the weather balloons to check temp/trends and ,hey presto, the tropics are warming nicely with the rest of us.....

Is that a royal "WE" GW or are you directly involved some how?

[Methuselah]

Because that's where we should be seeing any signature, but I'm sure you are aware of this already Peter!

I'd imagine that any global 'signature' should be observable most everywhere? But why should we only observe it in the tropics?

By march, all of the Northern Hemisphere will have been in the grip of a severe winter. But still the beeb will blame it all on regional warming!

That will have nothing whatever to do warming, cooling or anything-else 'global'. Merely synoptics?

[noggin]

From Robert ("You've never had it so good as under New Labour") Peston to the weather men talking ever so slowly to us as if we were 5 years old - they have lost all credibility with me.

I totally agree with your comments re weather forecast presentation...........if I hear one more person say something along the lines of "there will be lots of blue" then I may throw something at the telly! They do themselves no favours with this way of talking and additionally they insult the intelligence of the viewers.

Robert Peston, however.............

[laserguy]

I'd imagine that any global 'signature' should be observable most everywhere? But why should we only observe it in the tropics?

Here you go,Pete.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/green...ngsignature.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81217075138.htm

Yet another report telling us why cosmic rays do not impact on climate here on earth. Is this not the third time in as many years bringing us research to disprove the notion that cosmic rays can impact on how 'cloudy' the planet is (and hence it's impact on global temps)?

How many other ways do the contrarians excuse our recent temp trends (globally) in the face of the bulk of evidence that man is impacting climate/temps?

[Devonian]

Here you go,Pete.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/green...ngsignature.pdf

The Earth is a globe, I don't get the sceptic obsession with the tropic signature being absolutely 100% as predicted for there to be proof of global warming. Besides, it's a bit like looking at how a model might predict the path of a river over 10,000 years and and comparing it with reality saying: 'Hey, the path of the river isn't as predicted by the model so it's not proven water flows down hill' or, in other words, look at all the evidence for a proof.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2008...cal-dry-forest/

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5imB1vz...suxReCmDyIGSfUg

Everything seems in order from where I'm studying!

[Devonian]

http://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2008...cal-dry-forest/

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5imB1vz...suxReCmDyIGSfUg

Everything seems in order from where I'm studying!

Doh! I'd forgotten that...

See this as well.

[Methuselah]

The Earth is a globe, I don't get the sceptic obsession with the tropic signature being absolutely 100% as predicted for there to be proof of global warming. Besides, it's a bit like looking at how a model might predict the path of a river over 10,000 years and and comparing it with reality saying: 'Hey, the path of the river isn't as predicted by the model so it's not proven water flows down hill' or, in other words, look at all the evidence for a proof.

Dead right, Dev!

I do get impatient with those whose only recourse is to pick nits with established theory, as though that amounts to an alternative theory in itself...You cannot prove that CO2 is opaque to shortwave radiation at all wavelengths, ergo I can justifiably claim that it isn't opaque to shortwave radiation at all!

[Admiral_Bobski]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81217075138.htm

Yet another report telling us why cosmic rays do not impact on climate here on earth. Is this not the third time in as many years bringing us research to disprove the notion that cosmic rays can impact on how 'cloudy' the planet is (and hence it's impact on global temps)?

How many other ways do the contrarians excuse our recent temp trends (globally) in the face of the bulk of evidence that man is impacting climate/temps?

Hi GW!

I don't think the report really tells us why GCRs don't impact Earth climate, it merely concludes that GCRs don't, which is somewhat different.

Interestingly, the reason I am skeptical of the paper in question (which I think may have been written several months ago, as I seem to recall reading something very similar in a scientific paper a while back) is to do with the very thing we have been talking about on this thread - time lag.

The conclusions are based upon observations of cloud activity during Forbush decreases - periods of sudden excessive solar activity which last no more than a couple of days - and only over a relatively small (but supposedly representative) area of the globe. Whether or not a legitimate conclusion can be made on the basis of this limited data is a big question. Although GCRs may affect cloud formation, can a limited study genuinely expect to distinguish a signal caused by a short burst of activity like that, or will the effect by generally "smoothed out" by pre-existing climatological conditions?

I won't dismiss the study out of hand, but I feel that it can't be held as proof of the non-effect of GCRs until it has been sufficiently substantiated by broader studies.

CB

Edited December 18, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[ghrud]

Dead right, Dev!

I do get impatient with those whose only recourse is to pick nits with established theory, as though that amounts to an alternative theory in itself...You cannot prove that CO2 is opaque to shortwave radiation at all wavelengths, ergo I can justifiably claim that it isn't opaque to shortwave radiation at all!

Water flows down hill - Fact. Global warming induced by mans activity - Theory. Spot the difference?

[Coast]

The US space agency is set to launch a satellite that can map in detail where carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) will pinpoint the key locations on the Earth's surface where CO2 is being emitted and absorbed.

CO2 from human activities is thought to be driving climate changes, but important facts about its movement through the atmosphere remain elusive. The agency believes the technology on OCO can end some of the mysteries.

news.bbc.co.uk

[Methuselah]

Water flows down hill - Fact. Global warming induced by mans activity - Theory. Spot the difference?

And the idea that manmade CO2 somehow has different physical properties (i.e. it's not a greenhouse gas?) to its natural counterpart, is what? An hypothesis at best, or a fallacy borne out of wishful-thinking, bias and vested interest at worst. Take yourpick!

Or does the "It's nothing to do with us!" fraternity work with a different set of physical constants from the rest of us? Is manmade CO2 transparent to shortwaves whereas the 'other' stuff is opaque? Does the 'other' stuff keep Venus's surface hot enough to melt lead, whereas the manmade variety would not? For manmade CO2 to not insulate the planet, it necessitates a unique set of constants that are wholly different from pertaining to the 'other' stuff. What is its unique physical property that renders it thermally inert? Does it just disappear poof into outer space? I dont know.

Maybe there'll be a Horizon programme wholly dedicated to this new brach of physics? Just to take some of the bias out of science programmes, you know!

[Gray-Wolf]

The "Global Warming Theory" is a theory.

Climate change due to man's activities is an observable fact ("beyond reasonable doubt" I think the wording is)

And before folk go off on one I'd remind you of the Contrarians fondness for 'Urban Heat islands'.

[Kained]

And before folk go off on one I'd remind you of the Contrarians fondness for 'Urban Heat islands'.

Contrarians? Why is it necessary to engage in insulting behaviour to support your arguments? Let your arguments stand for what they are and if they are right then they will be proven so.

The "Global Warming Theory" is a theory.

If you're ignoring two features of scientific theory which are to be falsifiable and making testable predictions.

Climate change due to man's activities is an observable fact ("beyond reasonable doubt" I think the wording is)

Global or local? What is your scale of change? Without a definition of scale it is hard to determine something as fact.

[Devonian]

Water flows down hill - Fact. Global warming induced by mans activity - Theory. Spot the difference?

Ahh, but that's not what I said, I never mentioned facts.

It's about demanding a 'proof' but never saying what that proof would look like. About saying that unless a climate model exactly predicts the future in every way that it's wrong. About, simply put, nit picking.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (ghg). If you add more ghg to an atmosphere you increase the warming effect that gas has. That is as close to a scientific fact as you'll get, nit pick it or not.

[Solar Cycles]

Ahh, but that's not what I said, I never mentioned facts.

It's about demanding a 'proof' but never saying what that proof would look like. About saying that unless a climate model exactly predicts the future in every way that it's wrong. About, simply put, nit picking.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (ghg). If you add more ghg to an atmosphere you increase the warming effect that gas has. That is as close to a scientific fact as you'll get, nit pick it or not.

It's theory Dev, that's all. I'm sorry but you can add as much GHG as you like to the atomsphere, it won't make any difference to temperatures. That's why we have vast amounts of CO2 still being pumped into the atomsphere, and yet temperatures are dropping not rising. It's the sun I tells ya!!!

[Solar Cycles]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81217075138.htm

Yet another report telling us why cosmic rays do not impact on climate here on earth. Is this not the third time in as many years bringing us research to disprove the notion that cosmic rays can impact on how 'cloudy' the planet is (and hence it's impact on global temps)?

How many other ways do the contrarians excuse our recent temp trends (globally) in the face of the bulk of evidence that man is impacting climate/temps?

There is so much we still don't know about the sun, yet you seem to be able to dismiss it's impact on our climate. AGW is a close minded religion, who refuse to accept that there are bigger players in our climate other than man!

[Solar Cycles]

It's theory Dev, that's all. I'm sorry but you can add as much GHG as you like to the atmosphere, it won't make any difference to temperatures. That's why we have vast amounts of CO2 still being pumped into the atmosphere, and yet temperatures are dropping not rising. It's the sun I tells ya!!!

Also the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by humans is 7.5 Billion tonnes, and by natural cycles 330 Billion tonnes. Now what stands out with those figures?

[Gray-Wolf]

There is so much we still don't know about the sun, yet you seem to be able to dismiss it's impact on our climate. AGW is a close minded religion, who refuse to accept that there are bigger players in our climate other than man!

I thought Cosmic rays developed from the Cosmos and not the Solar system? I thought ,it being solar min, that the lack of solar wind was supposed to lead to an increase in cosmic ray bombardment of the troposphere (due to the lack of solar wind to sweep them away) and so an increase in cloud cover (by the bombardment leading to more condensation nucleii being available) reflecting more incoming solar radiation and so 'cooling' the planet.

Cosmic not Solar.

[Gray-Wolf]

Also the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by humans is 7.5 Billion tonnes, and by natural cycles 330 Billion tonnes. Now what stands out with those figures?

That there is a surplus of CO2? 7.5 billion tonnes above what the climate system has spent millions of years adjusting to (if we are to trust yoiur figures of course.... and no mention of natural carbon sinks and their capacity to deal with the overloaded system...and in some cases of them now providing a CO2 source and no longer a sink....).