Devonian

Pete, I don't disagree with any of that. I hope you don't think I might. Hey, I'm another Pete :lol:

Ok, lets see what you come up with. I stand by the claim that there is irrefutable evidence that the rise in concentration of CO2 is a consequence of mans activities. You'll have to show we've not burnt billion of tonnes of fossil fuels for a start....

Of course I would. I'm interesed in science. If you can refute the science in the paper (or I guess it's a review of science) then good on you but you'll have to upend science as accepted by those who accept AGW and a hell of a lot of those who are sceptical about AGW. Good luck. Of course. Over to you.

TWS, I'd like to see how it could be refuted that our activities are the reason for the rise in CO2. What might refute it (given we know how much fossil fuel has been burnt, how much CO2 that should produce (and thus how much CO2 has been 'sunk'), that we know about the differing isotopic ratios of CO2 form fossil fuels and the rest)?

No. You have to understand the natural emissions are vast BUT SO ARE NATURAL ABSORBTIONS of CO2 (sinks). This has to be the case else atmospheric CO2 would be rocketing up in concentration year by year. It didn't ...untill we started burning fossil fuels. Re the rest of your post, for heavens sake read the ruddy paper, don't just dismiss it or cherry pick an odd sentence here or there.

It's a review of peer reviewed science - but I guess you know what it says without reading it... Fact is in this whole field few things are more certain, certain as in establised by several independent lines of evidence, than that we, humanity, are reponsible for the rise in the concentration of atmospheric CO2. If you want to be taken seriously you'll realise that is the case.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html first section.

Nope. There is irrefutable evidence that the rise in concentration of CO2 is a consequence of mans activities. Stating otherwise can't change that.

No, well, average global temperature ain't just the Antipodies.

I think saying the above is to, perhaps unintentionally, plant nasty little 'anti accepted science' seeds in peoples minds. Lets see something, anything, to back up this claim of scientific wrongdoing. I think you have nothing but nasty little seeds. There is NO evidence the warming is just natural - none! How on earth you can conclude the warming is 'more likely' to be natural I simply can't figure out. You do know the effects of ghg's? You do know the sun isn't warming? So you base your conclusion on an false premis. It's also a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of black is white proportions, (which is, sadly, seen quite often), that to want to reduce the amount of climate changing ghg we add to the atmosphere is to, somehow, want to incease our effect on the climate. NO!, it's just so simple - reduce ghg's and you reduce the anthropogenic effect. See above. Oh, and this is a La Nina kind of year yet it's, globally, still warm. Go figure.

450 million years ago the planet was SO different (continents/oceans/ocean currents and thus weather patterns/the power of the sun also lower) it's rather deceptive to simply compare then with now unless you also point out the differences (but of course it's a nice diversion...). I suspect you'd dispute data showing it to be warmer now than at any time since the ice age, but you accept (without question?) far less reliable data for 450 million years ago? Wrt the last 18 000 years. Well, clearly the world came out of the ice age. That warming (initiated by the sun or Milankovic cycles?) gathered pace as feedback CO2 warming took effect. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration has climate altering effects, so messing with the concentration of Co2 is to mess with climate - period.

That's part of the story. Data shows that, over recent millions of years when mankind wasn't involved, CO2 was a feedback warming effect. That's not surprising, CO2 is a ghg, and if warming is set off that then sets off feedbacks (like warmed seas releasing CO2) that increase CO2 concentrations increasing the warming. But, atm, we're, by adding so much CO2, forcing the climate system - remember CO2 doesn't know if it's a feedback or a forcing it just acts as a ghg. We, not nature, are setting off the warming. No getting away from that reality. The real question is the magnitude of the anthropogenic warming, not if it's happening - oh and perhaps how much feedback warming we'll see.

So, CO2 isn't a ghg? No, it is a ghg and the rise in it's concentration due to our activities WILL have an effect. Also you simply can't compare the end of ice ages, when it seems CO2 warming was a feedback effect, with now where, and this is abundantly clear, CO2 is clearly acting as a climate forcing effect. Future feedback CO2 warming as an effect of present, past and future anthropogenic CO2 forcing may well also happen.

I take it all those critics of the film have actually seen it? No, probably not, but I hear the sound of knees jerking. The reports I've read say the science in it is actually pretty sound: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...al-gores-movie/ Well, that's told us... Err, care to back up your assertions with, well, anything? Specifically an nice science based justification for your, frankly, denailist 'CLIMATE CHANGE is happening but is not related to pollutants in the atmosphere' (my emphasis). How can you judge a film by the start of a clip . Sorry, but your post reeks of a prejudical attitude.

I think this is right. But... If you looks the hydrological cycle the amount of water vapour in the atmopshere at any one time is, infact, minimal compared ot the amount in the oceans,or indeed as fresh water - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle . So, in warmer world, more WV (and a bigger GH effect) and, in all likelyhood, more rain at least globally.

Sure, a little warming is probably good. The more and the faster it is the greater the rapidly of change and problems. Not sure how good for agriculture the soils under Tagia forests is, or how fertile land permanantly forzen might be if thawed. I do think there probably isn't 'much' soil under icecaps...

Err, you seem to have missed the really rather important fact that it was Cloudburst who suggested the figure as, he later explained, a 'if this happens, therefore this would result', example. Nowt to do with 'doomongers' or Greenpeace, nowt at all... But, hey, never mind, you got your jibe in eh?

Sure, not really disagreeing with what you write more with what the thread to some extent misses - the general LACK of ice this sping in the Arctic (as shown by the NSIDC data and others). We live in sea ice deficient times, though I do take notice of the shortness of the satellite data record and the paucity of data from say the 1930's when sea ice may (with each recent decline this surely become less likely) have been at similar low extents. 7C! Lets get some perspective here . A cooling of 2C would plunge us into something worse than a Little Ice Age, 7C warming would, I'm quite sure, be disasterous.

Not far away, east Dartmoor. Handy for the Met O

, I'm just a farmer with a keen weather (and sea ice) interest. I don't think the reliable sat data goes back past '79? Certainly the data easily available starts then. And certainly the NSIDC seem in little doubt about the lack of ice atm - http://nsidc.org/news/press/20060404_winterrecovery.html Perhaps we can agree there isn't an excess of ice this year?

It might be 'naughty. but is it wrong? I think not and I stand by it Comparisons? The averages used by NSIDC and the Finnish plus other bit and pieces I've read (two current issue of the RMS 'Weather' magazine are devoted to the state of the polar regions). Why do you think the satellite data isn't accurate (well, to it's stated degree)? I've seen no one really question it - the people from Denmark and other places know what they are doing and the problems/how to solve the probelm with the data - imo.

Time for a sea ice reality check. Sea ice in the Greenland Sea is of below normal area and extent. The Odden ice tongue has, to the best of my knowledge, been entirely absent this winter - that's most unusual (and this means little if any deep water being produced as a consequence of ice formation and consequent brine rejection). Sea ice area and extent in the Iceland/Greenland area is way less than during the peak years of the late '60's - way less, there's no comparison. The sea ice is miles away from Jan Mayen (though it used to often reach the island). Sea ice extent and area looks below normal in the Sea of Okhotsk, along the Labrador coast/Gulf of St Lawrence and in the Barents Sea. Sea ice has been fairly extensive in the Baltic (though, only compared with recent years). It's, as of today, now back below normal extent. Other areas look about normal. I can't see anywhere with significanly above normal extents or areas of ice. The net resources I've used: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archive...age_select.html http://met.no/kyst_og_hav/iskart.html http://www.bsh.de/en/Marine%20data/Observa...e/Ice/index.jsp http://www.fimr.fi/en/itamerikanta/itameri...jaatilanne.html http://www.fimr.fi/stc/itamerinyt/attachments/jaakartta.pdf http://www.physorg.com/news63552889.html

Simply put you Doncaster claim is wrong, since no one has said such a thing might happen. 7% - yikes! If it has cooled that much it would be snowball Earth time I'd guess. No, I'd say try this for a more realistic assesment. Not much change if any over the last few decades.

Well, I agree with Sir David, and, being optimistic, I'd hope at least some others here do too. Otoh, the 'have you say comments' about the article on the BBC are a pretty depressing (from my pov) reflection of those who've read it. The 'we know better than the experts' (err, how?) type

I think we're getting mixed up. SO2 (well, aerosols) has no effect on CO2 concentrations. SO2 might mask the warming effect of CO2. Agreed? Or are you saying what now is emitted as CO2 was being emitted as SO2? Well, I think that's 'wrong' as well. You burn a carbon based fuel you get CO2, the SO2 come from sluphates (and sulphides I guess) in the fuel, and from 'dirty' inefficent combustion. So the west, at least, is producing less aerosols (we're burning less coal for a start, we burn it more efficiently and cleanly now), the aerosols are clearing and the masking effect lessening.