The real cause of global climate change?

probe

There was an excellent documentary on www.arte.tv last night about the impact of cloud formations and climate change.

In addition to the calendar year, the earth is involved in other cycles – including the galactic cycle – a long journey around the milky way, which is = 250 million earth years. During this galactic cycle, the earth is subject to bombardment by differing amounts of cosmic / solar rays, depending on its proximity to clusters of stars.

The fewer cosmic rays hitting planet earth, the fewer clouds that are produced, earth becomes warmer, and vice versa. All clouds are formed by aerosol particles that are in the atmosphere. Cosmic rays enter the earth’s atmosphere, producing small ions, and these small charges help to form the aerosols which help create the clouds.

The evidence presented shows a high correlation between the sun's magnetic activity, cosmic rays and cloud formations, which in turn regulates the Earth's temperature.

CO2 theories have become so much part of the political agenda that these scientists had great difficulty in getting their work published.

Yet another nail in the coffin for the CO2 climate change lobby!

If you don't speak Danish, 99% of the content is in English - this youtube version of the programme was presumably taken from a Danish TV channel.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51K9x5iyjnU
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsEsFFIJQIY
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zOLtMIH8Q
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmebVbIO2Gs
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRrkitPezhI

Language: DK/EN (mostly EN)
Subtitles: EN/DK
Total duration: 52 min

Henrick Svensmark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
Nir Shaviv: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv
Jan Veizer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Veizer

Capt'n Midnight

Human activity has increased CO2 levels
CO2 is a green house gas and increased levels will lead to warming
there are several tipping point mechanisms in climate


yes there are other factors which determine temperature, for one the increase in clouds means more sunlight is reflected.


we can do nothing about volcanoes or cosmic rays


we can do stuff re CO2 - long term substainability would help not the mess of palm oil -

there are several tipping point mechanisms in climate, and avoiding these should be the focus. If the only issue with climate change was a reversable change of a fe degrees then spending the cabon tax on helping poorer countries cope with the effects of cliamate change would be a better spend.

But if the amazon rain forrest keeps drying out / the siberian permaforst melts / deep ocean currents warm up just enough to release methane hydrates then we won't be able to reverse the effects for a very long time

Akrasia

The above video is just another exposition of Svensmark theory on cosmic rays. This has already been explored by climate scientists and the vast majority of opinion is that while it is an interesting idea and there may be some effects on clouds from cosmic rays, it is highly unlikely that this is a major driver of the current global warming.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

Macha

Akrasia wrote: »

The above video is just another exposition of Svensmark theory on cosmic rays. This has already been explored by climate scientists and the vast majority of opinion is that while it is an interesting idea and there may be some effects on clouds from cosmic rays, it is highly unlikely that this is a major driver of the current global warming.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

Gah you beat me to it.

Pete M.

probe wrote: »

Yet another nail in the coffin for the CO2 climate change lobby!

yeah right :rolleyes:

probe

Akrasia wrote: »

The above video is just another exposition of Svensmark theory on cosmic rays. This has already been explored by climate scientists and the vast majority of opinion is that while it is an interesting idea and there may be some effects on clouds from cosmic rays, it is highly unlikely that this is a major driver of the current global warming.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

The item you link to pre-dates the research in this video by several years. The atmosphere is a complex animal.

Arte.tv is not going to blast that programme into a hundred million odd homes across Europe on Good Friday night without doing their own research on the state of play in science.

No single driver controls climate. CO2 is perhaps a minor component “at best”.

CO2 has turned into a media hype machine, almost to the exclusion of all other factors. It has grown political legs and is a money maker for many proponents, and has been a money maker for the people at the core of the hype – the University of East Anglia.

The key issue is one of relative impact assessment. (ie CO2 = x% responsible, solar/cosmic/magnetism issues y%, others z%). One can then determine which factors might be within the control of man, and which are outside. Allowing one to assign costs and perform a cost benefit analysis for any proposed measures.

As things stand, “the jury is out in my mind” in terms of the %ages.

Solar activity is and always be a major player in the clobal climate, despite the fact that the sun is very stable, it isn't static, the sunspot cycle is an expression of this!

Periods of low sunspot activity have historically co-incided with periods of cool climate on earth, there's no reason to discard changes in solar activity as a major factor in determining climate change.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

Periods of low sunspot activity have historically co-incided with periods of cool climate on earth, there's no reason to discard changes in solar activity as a major factor in determining climate change.

They haven't been discarded. They have been incorporated into calculations and human activities still account for the climate forcing we are experiencing today.

probe

taconnol wrote: »

They haven't been discarded. They have been incorporated into calculations and human activities still account for the climate forcing we are experiencing today.

Evidence/URLs please / preuve s'il vous plaît / Hinweise bitte /
elementi di prova per favore

Grazie

Macha

probe wrote: »

Evidence/URLs please / preuve s'il vous plaît / Hinweise bitte /
elementi di prova per favore

Grazie

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html

ThelotusKid

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But if the amazon rain forrest keeps drying out / the siberian permaforst melts / deep ocean currents warm up just enough to release methane hydrates then we won't be able to reverse the effects for a very long time

The planet is a complex living organism, which spat us out when it reached the environmental conditions necessary for our existence in accordance with its progression through its life cycle.

We did not create nor do we play any part in the natural cycle of this planets lifetime.

The natural cycle of this planet is to find balance. It produces what it can support; the emergent life, symbiotically, reflects the environmental conditions necessary for that life.

We are not that central to the Earth experience, however, we are a humorous addition, demonstrated by our ‘Save the Planet’ campaigns, and other deluded nonsense, the dissemination and inculcation of which, only serves to create a new generation of employees for another invented industry.

The irony, of course, is that for centuries, the corporations, and governments, which have stripped the planet bare, in search of raw materials for their profitable enterprises, and, in the process, enslaved billions of people around the world to work in their industries are the same corporations and governments pushing the CO2 Global Warming Agenda in a cleverly disguised re-branding exercise.

How can we have Climate Change experts when we still can’t accurately predict the local weather. Too many variables and mathematical constants which when put into the calculations don’t behave like constants, giving numerous differentiating results. Moreover, don’t even get me started on the reliable data, on which,all these spurious claims are predicated.

Of course, many intelligent people have invested their time and resources into finding a solution to a problem they don’t fully understand.

I honestly believe the climate on this planet will have sufficiently altered as to threaten our existence millennia after we fulfil our destiny and destroy ourselves.

Macha

ThelotusKid wrote: »

We did not create nor do we play any part in the natural cycle of this planets lifetime.

In fact, humans have been manipulating vast parts of the planet for many years. Humans have been engaged in agriculture for about 10,000 years and in that time we have been having a significant impact on the planet. What do you define as the "natural cycle" of this planet?

ThelotusKid wrote: »

How can we have Climate Change experts when we still can’t accurately predict the local weather. Too many variables and mathematical constants which when put into the calculations don’t behave like constants, giving numerous differentiating results. Moreover, don’t even get me started on the reliable data, on which,all these spurious claims are predicated.

Oh please do. There is a scientific consensus that there is a 90+% chance that humans are having a significant impact on the climate. If you'd like to refute that, please go ahead. We're talking about a scientific theory here, not a mathematical equation. In the same way that the theory of gravity has not been 100% proven but argument to the contrary are not worthy of our time and effort, so the arguments against AGW are in the main not worth of our time and effort.

Oh and on the differences between weather and climate (which I believe is covered in the JC geography curriculum):

Weather is the mix of events that happen each day in our atmosphere including temperature, rainfall and humidity. Weather is not the same everywhere. Perhaps it is hot, dry and sunny today where you live, but in other parts of the world it is cloudy, raining or even snowing. Everyday, weather events are recorded and predicted by meteorologists worldwide.

Climate in your place on the globe controls the weather where you live. Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over many years. So, the climate of Antarctica is quite different than the climate of a tropical island. Hot summer days are quite typical of climates in many regions of the world, even without the affects of global warming.

http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/index.html

Pete M.

It seems, perhaps, that we have an Acolyte of Prof. Lovelock in you Lotuskid.....

ThelotusKid

taconnol wrote: »

What do you define as the "natural cycle" of this planet?

Answered in post.

taconnol wrote: »

Oh and on the differences between weather and climate (which I believe is covered in the JC geography curriculum

Did not need to make that distinction - inferred similarity and not difference.

Thanks for the explanation though.

taconnol wrote: »

In the same way that the theory of gravity has not been 100% proven but argument to the contrary are not worthy of our time and effort

Until, we find the missing Gravitons.

djpbarry

ThelotusKid wrote: »

taconnol wrote: »

What do you define as the "natural cycle" of this planet?

Answered in post.

No it was not. It’s just a wishy-washy, catch-all term for use in describing absolutely anything that occurs on planet Earth in an attempt to disconnect man from his environment.

ThelotusKid wrote: »

taconnol wrote: »

Oh and on the differences between weather and climate (which I believe is covered in the JC geography curriculum):

Did not need to make that distinction - inferred similarity and not difference.

As has been pointed out countless times on this forum, predicting the weather for a given place on a given day and projecting global climatological shifts are not at all similar.

ThelotusKid wrote: »

Until, we find the missing Gravitons.

The theory of gravity will not be universally accepted until gravitons are detected?

ThelotusKid

djpbarry wrote: »

As has been pointed out countless times on this forum, predicting the weather for a given place on a given day and projecting global climatological shifts are not at all similar.

So, there is no variable or constant data considered when calculating either? If the raw data is incomplete/inaccurate, then, whether one is predicting weather, or projecting climate change, the results are erroneous - I'd call that a similarity.

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s just a wishy-washy, catch-all term for use in describing absolutely anything that occurs on planet Earth

'CO2 Global Warming' springs to mind.

djpbarry wrote: »

The theory of gravity will not be universally accepted until gravitons are detected?

They are an unknown/undetermined factor, which, depending on leakage or seepage, might change our entire understanding of what gravity actually is.

Turtwig

ThelotusKid wrote: »

They are an unknown/undetermined factor, which, depending on leakage or seepage, might change our entire understanding of what gravity actually is.

Even if our fundamental understanding of the processes behind gravity is completely overhauled our precision at predicting planets movements and objects falling speeds won't suddenly go away and count for nothing. It will still be just as accurate and used in the exact same way as it is now. To use your weather analogy, even though we don't have computers powerful enough to predict the day to day or minute to minute air movements. We can make general predictions over what kind of trends future weather will follow. Just like we can model where a block will fall, but not it's individual atoms that make it up. If we choose a large enough scale we can definitely say whether the block will fall or not. That's the climate scale; weather is short term atom locations' scale.

Macha

ThelotusKid wrote: »

So, there is no variable or constant data considered when calculating either? If the raw data is incomplete/inaccurate, then, whether one is predicting weather, or projecting climate change, the results are erroneous - I'd call that a similarity.

They are obviously linked but are you now trying to refute that climate change is actually happening at all, regardless of cause? If so, present your case.

ThelotusKid wrote: »

'CO2 Global Warming' springs to mind.

I am still waiting for your definition of the "natural cycle" of this planet. As for the phrase 'CO2 Global Warming', you've used it twice now in this thread. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you think it's a vague phrase, use a different one but don't use tangents to avoid answering basic questions.

ThelotusKid

Malty_T wrote: »

Just like we can model where a block will fall, but not it's individual atoms that make it up. If we choose a large enough scale we can definitely say whether the block will fall or not. That's the climate scale; weather is short term atom locations' scale.

To further the use your analogy: the block (climate), individual atoms (weather), quarks and leptons (man and the gases he emits)

taconnol wrote: »

are you now trying to refute that climate change is actually happening at all, regardless of cause? If so, present your case.

I never made that intimation.

taconnol wrote: »

I am still waiting for your definition of the "natural cycle" of this planet.

I refer again to my original post.

taconnol wrote: »

don't use tangents to avoid answering basic questions.

Tangents are established/identified when conventional wisdom fails to see the obscured/hidden connections.

The connectivity is there.

Macha

ThelotusKid wrote: »

I refer again to my original post.

Give me a definition, quoted from your original post or wherever else you like.

ThelotusKid wrote: »

Tangents are established/identified when conventional wisdom fails to see the obscured/hidden connections.The connectivity is there.

More irrelevance. If you're not willing to give a basic definition of the "natural cycle" of the planet, then just admit you're not willing to have a decent debate about climate change. So far all you've done is waffle and dodge questions.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html

I believe that chart severly underplays the part solar irradiance plays in controlling the earth's climate, particurlary after seeing the evidence from those videos. But it is more the suns magnetic activity rather than it's irradiance that affects the cloud formation.

A quiet sun (no sunspots) = weaker magnetic field = more cosmic rays reaching the lower atmosphere = more clouds = less solar energy reaching the surface = lower temperatures.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe that chart severly underplays the part solar irradiance plays i controlling the earth's climate, particurlary after seeing the evidence from those videos.

Can you give evidence and calculations, comparing them to those of the IPCC to demonstrate how the graph has underplayed solar irradiance?

Deleted User wrote: »

But it is more the suns magnetic activity rather than it's irradiance that affects the cloud formation.

A quiet sun (no sunspots) = weaker magnetic field = more cosmic rays reaching the lower atmosphere = more clouds = less solar energy reaching the surface = lower temperatures.

Where is your evidence of this? Perhaps from here?

There has been a pretty comprehensive refuting of that paper and its errors that's available for download, if you're interested.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

Can you give evidence and calculations, comparing them to those of the IPCC to demonstrate how the graph has underplayed solar irradiance?


Where is your evidence of this? Perhaps from here?

There has been a pretty comprehensive refuting of that paper and its errors that's available for download, if you're interested.

I cannot provide such answers, but I refer you to the Maunder and Dalton minimum periods in our recent history that have fairly good correlation between solar activity and measured earth surface temperatures.

ThelotusKid

taconnol wrote: »

More irrelevance. If you're not willing to give a basic definition of the "natural cycle" of the planet, then just admit you're not willing to have a decent debate about climate change. So far all you've done is waffle and dodge questions.

The natural cycle of the planet is to seek balance among its' interactive systems and ensure its continued survival.
I am not, however, implying that there is an intelligence involved.

ThelotusKid

ThelotusKid wrote: »

The natural cycle of the planet is to seek balance among its' interactive systems and ensure its continued survival.
I am not, however, implying that there is an intelligence involved.

Global surface temperatures are basically a function of energy in and energy out. the more energy that's put into the earth, be that from the sun, geothermal energy, fire! etc increase the temperatures - energy radiating into space via the atmosphere reduces it, some of which is blocked by greenhouse gases providing the earth with a temperature range that allows life to exist.

The fact that this planet has been able to develop and sustain life is pure chance!

The real question is whether the increases in CO2 which increases the greenhouse effect, is a major player in global warming climate change or is it something else.

ThelotusKid

Deleted User wrote: »

Global surface temperatures are basically a function of energy in and energy out.

The global surface temperature of the earth has remained constant since life started even though the energy received from the sun has increased by 25%.
The gases composing the atmosphere have also remained constant, even though, in theory, they should be reacting with each other.
And, the level of salt in the oceans has also remained constant, when all indicators suggest that it should increase.
Now that life has developed, it appears, the earth, would like to keep it that way.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

I cannot provide such answers, but I refer you to the Maunder and Dalton minimum periods in our recent history that have fairly good correlation between solar activity and measured earth surface temperatures.

Yes I'm aware of the Maunder Minimum and Dalton minimum. They're part of the same theory you've been discussing about solar activity's impact on the earth's temperature. But unfortunately, until you can explicitly explain where the IPCC have gotten it wrong in terms of factoring in solar activity, I'll have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

ThelotusKid wrote: »

The natural cycle of the planet is to seek balance among its' interactive systems and ensure its continued survival.

So, given your idea of the planet as seeking balance, why do you think that humans are not capable of interfering with this process?

ThelotusKid wrote: »

The global surface temperature of the earth has remained constant since life started even though the energy received from the sun has increased by 25%.

So..you are trying to argue that climate change is not happening! You're really saying that in the last 3.7 billion years the earth's temperature surface has remained constant? I don't know any scientist that would agree with that statement.

ThelotusKid wrote: »

The gases composing the atmosphere have also remained constant, even though, in theory, they should be reacting with each other.

This is also incorrect. Huge amounts of CO2 and other compounds were removed from the atmosphere and laid down in the lithosphere over millions of years.

ThelotusKid wrote: »

Now that life has developed, it appears, the earth, would like to keep it that way.

You seem to believe in some sort Gaia.

Turtwig

ThelotusKid wrote: »

The global surface temperature of the earth has remained constant since life started even though the energy received from the sun has increased by 25%.
The gases composing the atmosphere have also remained constant, even though, in theory, they should be reacting with each other.
And, the level of salt in the oceans has also remained constant, when all indicators suggest that it should increase.
Now that life has developed, it appears, the earth, would like to keep it that way.

ThelotusKid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Macha

OK, let's try and keep this civil

ThelotusKid wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Are you saying that you believe in Gaia, or some form of the Gaia theory?

ThelotusKid

taconnol wrote: »

Are you saying that you believe in Gaia, or some form of the Gaia theory?

Are you saying you believe in the conventional scientific understanding, based on biased, inaccurate, and corruptible data?

Turtwig

ThelotusKid wrote: »

Are you saying you believe in the conventional scientific understanding, based on biased, inaccurate, and corruptible data?

Nope, Tac and I don't believe in scientific stuff: we accept it.

ThelotusKid

Malty_T wrote: »

Nope, Tac and I don't believe in scientific stuff: we accept it.

Well, just keep swallowing then so.

Macha

ThelotusKid wrote: »

Are you saying you believe in the conventional scientific understanding, based on biased, inaccurate, and corruptible data?

Three pages later, I'm still waiting for you to provide some evidence of how the scientific consensus is based on "biased, inaccurate, and corruptible data".

As Malty_T said, s/he and I may not agree on everything but at a very minimum we try to defend our positions through the presentation of scientific data.

ThelotusKid wrote: »

Well, just keep swallowing then so.

The same childish comment can be thrown at anyone who doesn't agree with another person but it doesn't really add to the debate, does it?

Capt'n Midnight

ThelotusKid wrote: »

The global surface temperature of the earth has remained constant since life started even though the energy received from the sun has increased by 25%.
The gases composing the atmosphere have also remained constant, even though, in theory, they should be reacting with each other.
And, the level of salt in the oceans has also remained constant, when all indicators suggest that it should increase.
Now that life has developed, it appears, the earth, would like to keep it that way.

Temp hasn't remained constant there have been several snowball earths

the atmosphere and seas have changed a lot over time , sea used to be brown , atmosphere composition has changed totally

the Mediterranean has dried out many times with lots of salt buried under it , subduction of limestone also helps in the cycle and doesn't it help power palte techtonics or something ?

Capt'n Midnight

ThelotusKid wrote: »

The natural cycle of the planet is to seek balance among its' interactive systems and ensure its continued survival.
I am not, however, implying that there is an intelligence involved.

nope.

within some limits mechanisms like cloud formation have negative feedback

you can also add in Daisyworld mechanisms to provide more negative feedback

But those mechanisms will only work within narrow limits.

The examples of Venus, Mars, Snowball Earth all show natural cycle of a planet won't protect it. Also the release of Oxygen by photosynthesisers wiped out most of the life on the planet, no balance there.

Turtwig

taconnol wrote: »

As Malty_T said, s/he and I may not agree on everything

Just curious, I can't actually recall something that we've yet to disagree on. We may not agree on everything, but have we disagreed on anything yet?:)

ThelotusKid wrote:

Well, just keep swallowing then so.

Would you rather if I swallowed your Gaia viewpoint? As I got to admit that I find it way more appetising and peaceful. It won't change reality though. Whether you choose to accept the truth of something or not, it won't go away and it certainly won't change. So I'm going to ask you at what point in this planets lifetime did it develop this wonderful equilibrium? I'm also going to ask you if you subscribe to the gaia like theory that humans are upsetting the natural balance and even though nature will rebalance herself, it may not do so with humanity's best interests in mind?

Turtwig

Deleted User wrote: »

I cannot provide such answers, but I refer you to the Maunder and Dalton minimum periods in our recent history that have fairly good correlation between solar activity and measured earth surface temperatures.

For your consideration.

Stefan Rahmstorf and Georg Feulner of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany modelled what would happen to temperatures on Earth if a grand minimum started now and lasted until 2100. They found that while temperatures would go down by as much as 0.3 °C, global warming would push up temperatures by 3.7 to 4.5 °C - more than negating any effect of a global minimum

ThelotusKid

taconnol wrote: »

Three pages later, I'm still waiting for you to provide some evidence of how the scientific consensus is based on "biased, inaccurate, and corruptible data".

Not my words, nevertheless, an accurate exposition - http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html

taconnol wrote: »

The same childish comment can be thrown at anyone who doesn't agree with another person but it doesn't really add to the debate, does it?

I was responding in kind.

BTW, three pages on, this thread also awaits a constructive contribution from you.

[QUOTE=Capt'n [/COLOR]Midnight;65266326]Temp hasn't remained constant there have been several snowball earths[/QUOTE]

Since life began, measured on a global scale, the global surface temperature has remained remarkably constant.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

the Mediterranean has dried out many times with lots of salt buried under it , subduction of limestone also helps in the cycle and doesn't it help power plate tectonics or something ?

Or something.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

nope.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

within some limits mechanisms like cloud formation have negative feedback

you can also add in Daisyworld mechanisms to provide more negative feedback

But those mechanisms will only work within narrow limits.

The examples of Venus, Mars, Snowball Earth all show natural cycle of a planet won't protect it. Also the release of Oxygen by photo synthesisers wiped out most of the life on the planet, no balance there.

Are you saying that Venus and Mars are dead planets?

A planets definition of life is not confined to the creepy-crawlies that inhabit its' skin.

Malty_T wrote: »

Would you rather if I swallowed your Gaia viewpoint?

Just as long as we're clear that I did not put anything in your mouth.

Malty_T wrote: »

So I'm going to ask you at what point in this planets lifetime did it develop this wonderful equilibrium? I'm also going to ask you if you subscribe to the gaia like theory that humans are upsetting the natural balance and even though nature will rebalance herself, it may not do so with humanity's best interests in mind?

Honestly, I don't know; maybe we should ask a dinosaur.

Macha

ThelotusKid wrote: »

Not my words, nevertheless, an accurate exposition - http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html

The UEA climate emails have been dealt with already in another thread. While the behaviour of the scientists revealed an unfortunate attitude towards those who don't believe in AGW but no scientific conspiracy. You'll have to do better than link to a Spiegel article in order to pull down the entire science of AGW.

ThelotusKid wrote: »

BTW, three pages on, this thread also awaits a constructive contribution from you.

I would have thought the graphs and peer reviewed articles I linked to were at least a little informative.

ThelotusKid wrote: »

Since life began, measured on a global scale, the global surface temperature has remained remarkably constant.

Define "constant" in this context. Are you aware of what the fluctuations of global surface temperature have been over the last 3.7 billion years?

ThelotusKid

taconnol wrote: »

As Malty_T said, s/he and I may not agree on everything but at a very minimum we try to defend our positions through the presentation of scientific data.

Look, Malty_T is a male, and you, taconnol, are a female. Scientific enough for you?

taconnol wrote: »

You'll have to do better than link to a Spiegel article in order to pull down the entire science of AGW.
?

I've got a big dick-any chance I may be able to convince you? It is 'Science' afterall.

Macha

ThelotusKid wrote: »

Look, Malty_T is a male, and you, taconnol, are a female. Scientific enough for you?

I've got a big dick-any chance I may be able to convince you? It is 'Science' afterall.

Oh look - my patience just ran out. Banned for a month.

Come back when you learn how to debate like an adult.

probe

Bret Stephens in today's WSJ "Europe":

A contest to invent the next panic.

So global warming is dead, nailed into its coffin one devastating disclosure, defection and re-evaluation at a time. Which means that pretty soon we're going to need another apocalyptic scare to take its place.

As recently as October, the Guardian reported that scientists at Cambridge had "concluded that the Arctic is now melting at such a rate that it will be largely ice free within ten years." This was supposedly due to global warming. It brought with it the usual lamentations for the grandchildren.

But in March came another report in the Guardian, this time based on the research of Japanese scientists, that "much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is [due] to the region's swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming." It also turns out that the extent of Arctic sea ice in March was around the recorded average, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

The difference between the two stories has little to do with science: There were plenty of reasons back in October to suspect that the Arctic ice panic—based on data that only goes back to 1979—was as implausible as the now debunked claim about disappearing Himalayan glaciers. But thanks to Climategate and the Copenhagen fiasco, the media are now picking up the kinds of stories they previously thought it easier and wiser to ignore.


This is happening internationally. In France, a book titled "L'imposture climatique" is a runaway bestseller: Its author, Claude Allègre, is one of the country's most acclaimed scientists and a former minister of education in a Socialist government. In Britain, environmentalist patron saint James Lovelock now tells the BBC he suspects climate scientists have "[fudged] the data" and that if the planet is going to be saved, "it will save itself, as it always has done." In Germany, the leftish Der Spiegel devotes 15 pages to a deliciously detailed account of "scientists who want to be politicians," the "curious inconsistencies" in the temperature record, the "sloppy work" of the U.N.'s climate-change panel and sundry other sins of modern climatology.

As for the United States, Gallup reports that global warming now ranks sixth on the list of Americans' top 10 environmental concerns. My wager is that within a few years "climate change" will exercise global nerves about as much as overpopulation, toxic tampons, nuclear winters, ozone holes, killer bees, low sperm counts, genetically modified foods and mad cows do today.

Something is going to have to take its place.

The world is now several decades into the era of environmental panic. The subject of the panic changes every few years, but the basic ingredients tend to remain fairly constant. A trend, a hypothesis, an invention or a discovery disturbs the sense of global equilibrium. Often the agent of distress is undetectable to the senses, like a malign spirit. A villain—invariably corporate and right-wing—is identified.

Then money begins to flow toward grant-seeking institutions and bureaucracies, which have an interest in raising the level of alarm. Environmentalists counsel their version of virtue, typically some quasi-totalitarian demands on the pattern of human behavior. Politicians assemble expert panels and propose sweeping and expensive legislation. Eventually, the problem vanishes. Few people stop to consider that perhaps it wasn't such a crisis in the first place.

This is what's called eschatology—a belief, or psychology, that we are approaching the End Time. Religions have always found a way to take account of those beliefs, but today's secular panics are unmoored by spiritual consolations or valid moral injunctions. Instead, we have the modern-day equivalent of the old Catholic indulgence in the form of carbon credits. It's how Al Gore justifies his utility bills.

Given the inescapability of weather, it's no wonder global warming gripped the public mind as long as it did. And there's always some extreme-weather event happening somewhere to be offered as further evidence of impending catastrophe. But even weather gets boring, and so do the people who natter about it incessantly. What this decade requires is a new and better panic.

continued.... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304017404575165573845958914.html

probe

probe wrote: »

Bret Stephens in today's WSJ "Europe":

A contest to invent the next panic.
What this decade requires is a new and better panic.

continued.... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304017404575165573845958914.html

How about the trilogy of terror, a triple panic!

Peak oil, Economic meltdown & Overpopulation!

Where Oil consumption exceeds production, causing economic meltdown and exposing us to the fact that the planet can no longer support the current population. This being caused by the lack of oil for agriculture.

djpbarry

probe wrote: »

So global warming is dead, nailed into its coffin one devastating disclosure, defection and re-evaluation at a time.

Say what now? The science behind climate change has been thoroughly debunked, has it?

probe wrote: »

As recently as October, the Guardian reported that scientists at Cambridge had "concluded that the Arctic is now melting at such a rate that it will be largely ice free within ten years." This was supposedly due to global warming. It brought with it the usual lamentations for the grandchildren.

But in March came another report in the Guardian, this time based on the research of Japanese scientists, that "much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is [due] to the region's swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming."

At what point did The Guardian become an authority on climate science?

probe wrote: »

My wager is that within a few years "climate change" will exercise global nerves about as much as overpopulation, toxic tampons, nuclear winters, ozone holes, killer bees, low sperm counts, genetically modified foods and mad cows do today.
...
The world is now several decades into the era of environmental panic. The subject of the panic changes every few years, but the basic ingredients tend to remain fairly constant. A trend, a hypothesis, an invention or a discovery disturbs the sense of global equilibrium. Often the agent of distress is undetectable to the senses, like a malign spirit.
...
Eventually, the problem vanishes. Few people stop to consider that perhaps it wasn't such a crisis in the first place.

With regard to ozone depletion and Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (also known, incorrectly, as mad-cow disease), is the author implying that concerns with respect to these particular issues was misplaced? Were the phasing-out of CFC’s and the culling of BSE-infected cattle nothing more than the results of media-fuelled hysteria?

Cue the compulsory reference to Al Gore:

probe wrote: »

Religions have always found a way to take account of those beliefs, but today's secular panics are unmoored by spiritual consolations or valid moral injunctions. Instead, we have the modern-day equivalent of the old Catholic indulgence in the form of carbon credits. It's how Al Gore justifies his utility bills.

SeanW

A few months ago, someone posted a video which I found quite interesting:
Global Warming or Global Governance?
I was already becoming unsure about Anthrophogenic Climate Change, given the ethical insolvency and demonstrable irresponsibility of most of the theory's main proponents. But the video in particular makes a number of claims:

1. Al Gore, in testimony to Congress in the middle of the last decade, specifically made reference to the previous winter - worldwide - being the hottest on record. The video continued by playing news reports from Spring 2007, which showed the exact opposite. This video was made before the diabolically cold winter of 2009-2010.
2. Extreme weather is common, and not necessarily increasing.
3. The universal consensus among scientists about ACC does not exist - many scientists disagree.
4. Atmospheric CO2 spikes in the past have followed, not precceded, rises in world temperature. A causal link showing CO2 increases preceeding temperature spikes can be misleadingly drawn by showing 2 such graphs separately instead of as one.
5. 210 billion tons of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere each year. Humans are responsible for only 6.3 billion tons of that, the rest is accounted for by natural sources.
6. CO2 amounts to less than 2% (1.9%) of the total level of green house gases in the atmosphere, while just under 97% (96.9%) is made up of various forms of water vapour. The balance is made up of things like Methane and Nitrous Oxide.
7. There has always been variability in climate, i.e. the only constant in our climate IS change.
8. In recent history, the world was emerging from a Little Ice Age, (where among other things, the river Thames in London used to freeze)
9. The MHB98 report (the Mann "Hockey Stick") contained an erroneus graph showing, the past millenium, 900 years of stable temperatures followed by a spike in the 20th century.
10. 8000 years ago, temperatures were 6-8 degrees (Farenheit) warmer in the Arctic than today. Polar bears and other arctic wildlife evidently survived that, and are not threatened today. So much for all those propoganda videos about the last polar bear falling off the last bit of broken ice in a wide-open Arctic Sea. Or that other video (aimed at children) showing the polar bear throwing himself off a rock becuase "you've given up and so has he."
11. 5000 years ago, general temperatures on Earth were vastly higher than even the most extreme alarmist predictions for the worst case scenario of ACC.
12. Data from ground stations showing a sharp rise in temperature, is contaminated by changes in land use over the years. Data from atmospheric weather ballons, in near pefect agreement with satellite monitoring, show a much more moderate rise in temperatures over decades.
13. The exceptionally warm year 1998 was caused by a large El Nino forming at low lattitude, which caused an increase in global water vapour rates
14. In the 1970s, the Scare du-jour was Global Cooling, the world was threatened with a new Ice Age. Much of the same language being used today, was also being used to describe the opposite problem back as far as 1975.
15. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political organisation that exists to provide proof of ACC and promote carbon reduction measures, and is neither independent nor impartial.
16. The computer modelling the IPCC depends on is very difficult to get right, due to the number and complexity of factors involved.
17. Hurricane experts almost unanimously refute any claim that global warming to date has led to a greater number and severity of hurricanes.
18. Greenland, a considerable portion of ACC concern, has lost only a small amount of its total continental ice in recent years, coastal ice has been largely lost but the inland ice is growing, to the point where objects lost on the ice plain decades ago are now buried - intact - hundreds of feet below the current ice surface. Al Gore predicts a 20ft rise in sea levels when "Greenland 'goes'"
    Specifically, in the 1200s and 1300s, Vikings founded a farming colony on Greenland and prospered there during the Medieval Warm Period. By 1400, temperatures fell to levels similar to those of today and they had to abandon their colony, since then the land the Vikings farmed is now under huge sheets of ice.
19. Current warming is adequately accounted for by a combination of increased solar flares, combined with increasing solar winds, deflects more cosmic rays from Milky Way planets, which in turn decreases cloud formation, allowing more solar energy to reach the Earth. Other plants in our system are also experiencing (perhaps similar?) levels of global warming.
20. The benefits of an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are almost always understated or never discussed at all. In Earth's history, CO2 concentrations have been much higher than they are now - up to 10 times higher, and plants, particularly agricultural plants - thrive on high CO2 concentrations. The agricultural revolution happened virtually worldwide at the same time, about 9000 years ago, when CO2 concentrations had surged from 200 parts per million to 250 ppm in a relatively short time. Modern experiments with plants show an unequivocal strong correlation between CO2 concentration and plant biomass from a given group of plants, seeds or whatever. A doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to a 20%-50% improvement in yields of most common commercial crops, cause earlier maturity, require less water, lengthen growing seasons and make more land useful to grow any given crop type, more reliably, in spite of pollution or occasional droughts.
21. Many scientists are dependent of "soft money" i.e. grants from governments that are indirectly linked to them producing evidence in favour of climate change alarmism. Far from the "deniers" all being funded by the evil oil companies, Many large companies now have a vested interest in the ACC alarmism, and have begun lobbying politicians on that basis.
22. Anthrophogenic global warming, being a worldwide problem, and thus requiring worldwide solutions, is the perfect issue to, under innocent appearances, create organs of one-world government. Many of the things being called for by people like Al Gore (such as replacing income taxes with resource taxes) were predicted to be the planks of a conspiracy dating back to the 1960s.

Frankly, if even 1/10 of the contents of this video are true, it would provide evidence that Ireland (and every other free country) should IMMEDIATELY repudiate the Kyoto Protocol and eliminate all the carbon taxes.

We know that most of the people promoting ACC are either pursuing policies that will make the problem worse (such as Greenpeace and all the main world Green Parties, opposing nuclear energy, using equivalent levels of bad science and mendacious fearmongering), or have vested interests in promoting the theory (Al Gore, corporate lobbyists, One Worlders). Combine this with the leaked University of Anglia emaile, the theory man made climate change should be taken less and less seriously, IMO with each passing day.

AngryHippie

Here comes my 2.5 cents
I personally think that finding ways to exploit renewable energy, on a sustainable long term basis is a logical step for our society to take at this point in our evolution.
I doubt that our Carbon output is going to burn up the planet, but if it is a cause or contributing factor to an alteration of our (relatively) stable climate patterns up to this point in time, then it certainly makes some sort of sense to take steps to reduce our impact, for the following reasons :

1. Population growth and the need to produce food from agriculture
2. Declining natural fish stocks as the only alternative to stable agricultural output
3. high demand for accomadation and settlement for our growing population
4. expectations on all adults to provide a safe future for our children
5. the unavailability of emergency food/water/shelter to the vulnerable billions outside of the 1st world
6. the consequences if we screw up all of the above

I'm not playing the "won't someone think of the children" game.
I'm not committing myself to ACC or AGW.
I'm not pointing out anything that is less than blatantly obvious.

The supplies of Carbon based fuels, extracted from the means we currently have at our disposal are finite. Wheter or not they affect climate is moot. If we do not provide an infrastructure and energy source for the generations to come they too will spend their time and precious resources in the wrong areas, just as we are, and jepoardise the future that I believe our species deserves.
We have come a long way from the vicious monkeys we once were, we have learned to live each other, but unless we find a way around Malthus, or a way to accomadate his logic, we are going to breed ourselves back into the dark ages, cause untold generations of suffering, and pass a poisoned legacy of corruption decay and idiocy to the poor ba$tards we have evolved to spawn.

But I honestly cannot give you a scientific equation to prove it, I wouldn't even know where to start, But I'm damn sure my great great great grandchildren won't have the luxury of the time and communications network to sit around arguing about whether farts or fires warm the planet more.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

We know that most of the people promoting ACC are either pursuing policies that will make the problem worse (such as Greenpeace and all the main world Green Parties, opposing nuclear energy, using equivalent levels of bad science and mendacious fearmongering), or have vested interests in promoting the theory (Al Gore, corporate lobbyists, One Worlders).

Given the level of misinformation and number of obtuse claims that have you have just produced in your list of 22 points (while overlooking the ‘one-worlder’ nonsense), you’re not exactly in a position to point the finger and accuse others of communicating “bad science”. To take just one example:

SeanW wrote: »

Current warming is adequately accounted for by a combination of increased solar flares, combined with increasing solar winds, deflects more cosmic rays from Milky Way planets, which in turn decreases cloud formation, allowing more solar energy to reach the Earth. Other plants in our system are also experiencing (perhaps similar?) levels of global warming.

Do you have a source to support this claim? I’m pretty sure you don’t, because similar claims have been produced countless times before and yet the quantitative supporting evidence is still lacking.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Do you have a source to support this claim? I’m pretty sure you don’t, because similar claims have been produced countless times before and yet the quantitative supporting evidence is still lacking.

Evidense supporting the effects of solar activity have been placed in this forum in the past, only to be dismissed by AGW supporters!

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

Evidense supporting the effects of solar activity have been placed in this forum in the past, only to be dismissed by AGW supporters!

The only evidence I have seen in this thread is from you as below:

Deleted User wrote: »

Solar activity is and always be a major player in the clobal climate, despite the fact that the sun is very stable, it isn't static, the sunspot cycle is an expression of this!

Periods of low sunspot activity have historically co-incided with periods of cool climate on earth, there's no reason to discard changes in solar activity as a major factor in determining climate change.

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe that chart severly underplays the part solar irradiance plays in controlling the earth's climate, particurlary after seeing the evidence from those videos. But it is more the suns magnetic activity rather than it's irradiance that affects the cloud formation.

A quiet sun (no sunspots) = weaker magnetic field = more cosmic rays reaching the lower atmosphere = more clouds = less solar energy reaching the surface = lower temperatures.

You also link to a wikipedia page about Maunder but that is not exactly a scientific argument. I previously said that the impact of solar activity has not been discarded and have been incorporated into calculations and human activities still account for the climate forcing we are experiencing today.

I asked you to show me the scientific calculations that demonstrate the error in the IPCC graph I linked to on Page 1 and you said you were unable to. Now what I am I supposed to do with that? Just believe you? But that's exactly what I'm being accused of - being gullible!

SeanW

Do you have a source to support this claim? I’m pretty sure you don’t, because similar claims have been produced countless times before and yet the quantitative supporting evidence is still lacking.

I don't have to as I was summarising a video, and this was one of THEIR points, not mine. I'm not sure of all the claims the group has made, but I believe it presents the alarmists with a case to answer. I am not a scientist, and I don't pretend to be one, but a lot of the claims make sense.

Remember that many of the claims on the video are backed by the University professors and researchers that made them. If you haven't acutally watched the video, I suggest you do.

But by all means if the Mann "Hockey Stick" is correct, the Vikings never had flourishing, then failing (in tune with the climate) farming colony on Greenland, or all that stuff about increased CO2 concentrations being beneficial to plant life is bunkum, then please enlighten me.

But until then, if someone tells me "you need to give up your car, move into a sh**y apartment block, forget about international travel and generally live like a pauper" I'm going to ask:

1. Are you prepared to live the same way as the average schmuck person as you advocate?
2. Do you, strongly and unequivocaly, support nuclear energy as an anti-climate-change tool?

And if the answer to either question is no, then the sensible thing is to ignore everything else they say.