jethro

If you read the article again, you may come to understand that it argues for action on a global level, for what is a global problem. His assertion that Britain can make very little difference as a nation on it's own, is an accurate assessment. Find me any evidence which tells otherwise. Your assumption that I do not worry or would worry about you or 60 million Bangladeshis is arrogant and offensive. Made particularly more so since I have worked in the third world, trying to assist they subsistant lives. I did three years as a VSO volunteer; I know first hand the problems faced by third world inhabitants. Do you? Do you give ten percent of your monthly income to charitable foundations to continue to help? Some of us do, so don't sodding judge from your sea level platform; put your money where your mouth is as the saying goes.

One of the most sensible responses to Climate Change that I've read in a very, long time. Well done M for posting.

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/ak...ng_from_LIA.pdf Found this today on Accuweather, thought some would find it interesting.

Do I get a gold star? You're right about the reticence, I've spent hours trawling the net, to no avail so far; onward and upward... I'm sure I've read somewhere about C14, space nuclear bomb testing and climate shift patterns. It is only a vague memory, possibly flawed by the volume of stuff I've read recently, but I think the theory was that land based explosions had less long term impact than the space ones. Land based explosions create the familiar mushroom cloud and are shortlived, comparatively contained, atmospheric wise. The space ones detonated with a huge, flat, round surface over a massive distance and the explosions sometimes lasted as long as 30 minutes! Presumably, all that C14 has got to still be there to some extent? Will it/has it entered our atmosphere? More digging required. That's all I ever seem to do, digging at work, digging at home, was I spade in a previous life?

GW, a totally off the wall thought, quite possibly complete balls but.....whilst digging around the Net trying to find info on Carbon 14 I read quite a few sites about Nuclear Testing trying to find out how much extra C14 was thrown into the atmosphere at the time - pre test ban treaty. It appears the Russians detonated quite a few large, megatonne, nuclear bombs underwater. Can't remember where, but should be fairly easy to find out with some digging. If it was anywhere near the Artic, what effect do you think it could have had? Can't have been a positive one. Could it have started/stepped up erosion? All that energy released has got to have warmed sub ocean surely?

Morning folks, sorry for being so slack in adding more info. P3, I've now had a chance to read through your linked report; comprehensive stuff! From page 30... "The production of cosmogenic radionuclide Be10 and Carbon 14 can be influenced by geomagnectic field fluctations. These fluctuations are caused interactions between the Earth's mantle and core. Accurate assessment of changes in the geomagnectic field is thus of direct importance for understanding solar variability. Reconstructing geomagnective activity, however is a difficult task and unfortunately, already small changes in the long term trend substantially influence the amplitude and sign of the reconstructed solar activity changes. On the smaller scales, changes in the geomagnetic field are even less well defined." So, my question of whether or not the declining magnectic field had any impact on Carbon 14 levels, appears to be yes. From page 131..... "By emitting magnatised plasma, the Sun influences the Earth's atmosphere indirectly by heliospheric modulation of the component of the galactic cosmic radiation. The amplitudes of the CR variations depend on those of the Solar Cycle. The cosmogenic radionuclides are proxies for this influence. Never during the past 10,000 years has the Sun been as active in ejecting magnetised plasma as during the last half century, in which period it remained fairly constant. Estimates suggest that the level of solar activity may recently have passed it's maximum and that it may decrease in coming decades." The theory therefore should be that the relatively recent decline in Earth's magnectic filed and the increased solar output, should lead to greater levels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere. My original question was whether or not Carbon 14 levels had increased and if so, had this increase been considered when calculating the increase of Co2. Research upon C14 is very thin on the ground, most of it relating to Carbon Dating but from what I've managed to find so far, it would appear that yes, it has been taken into consideration so no, it would not in any way negate the figures for Co2 levels. However; as this had been my starting point I assumed, wrongly, that carbon is carbon when it comes to acting as a GHG and warming the atmosphere. Carbon 14 is used to calculate the age of antiquities as it has a known, stable, degeneration. It was one of the measurements taken from the Ice Core samples and scientists have comprehensive tables of measurements going back thousands of years. More recent, reliable data for atmospheric measurements is however, harder to come by since the nuclear testing threw large, but unknown quantified amounts into the atmosphere. Using the data from the Ice Cores is considered to be valid and the resounding picture is that high levels of C14 coincide with COOLING not warming as I'd assumed. The Wolf, Sporer and Maunder minimums all have high levels of C14. The temperature charts of the 20th century show an increase in the earlier part of the century, followed by a decrease; if memory serves me correctly, in the 60's/70's? This always seems to be explained as an anomoly caused by decreased solar activity; a perfectly reasonable explaination to me. But, and this has me puzzled as it has made me question my belief that a lot of the recent warming is down to natural causes, most likely solar in origin. What if the dip in temperatures was caused artificially by the sudden, large influx of C14 into the atmosphere by nuclear bomb testing? We know levels rocketed at that time, we know why and how - we did it. We also know from the Ice Cores that high levels of C14 go hand in hand with cooling periods. What happens to mine and other's theories if that anomaly in the 60'/70's is accounted for and the true picture is one of unrelenting warming since the mid 1850's (?). Another question I now have is; levels of C14 have been climbing due to the reduction in the Earth's magnetic field and the increased Solar activity. So, theoretically we should be cooling, some scientists say the globe HAS been cooling since about 1996 (?). The Sun is forecast to become much, much quieter after the next Solar max due in roughly 2013. So, taking a combination of these two factors, does this mean we are entering a period of declining temperatures? Is there an inherent system of feedback whereby the Sun's activities increase the levels of C14 until such a level is reached that a cooling response is made? If so, how? Favoured theory seems to be by increasing cloudiness but there appears to be much uncertainty there at the moment. Round and round and round we go. More research is planned into the reduction of the Earth's magnetic field and it's impact upon our atmosphere but until such information is available, it's hard to draw a true picture. What I've learned so far has certainly made me question my understanding of AGW/GW. I would be intersted to hear the opinions of others on this forum who have much greater knowledge of the working of the Solar cycle. Yours, very confused. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057/ndp057.htm http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2wee.../20060920_13.ht http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal04.htm

Mmm, the world and the USA in particular are now taking this very seriously. If that's the case then I really cannot see them putting a great deal of money into sourcing alternative, non polluting fuels, just yet. Can you? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/business...s/20angola.html Hope the link works this time.

I'd thought about starting a poll, but that is too artificial a process. But I would like to ask anyone who reads these threads to answer this, simple, question: has anything that we argue here, post or write, made any difference to what you thought about AGW before you started reading the thread? Sadly, I suspect I already know what most of the answers are going to be, but I live in hope. So, please answer, anyone who reads this, for the sake of those of us who struggle to put our case: is it worth the effort? :)P

Thanks P3, I haven't as yet had a chance to read it, I'll get back to you when I have. I think maybe I should have started this just after crimbo when I had more time. Progress will I fear, be slow. Dawn

This was posted a second time because the mods decided this, possibly total balderdash from my addled mind was worth further investigation. This is the busiest time of year for me and since the Sun has come out, my working world has gone mad so I apologise now if info from me, posted about this is sporadic. I've had a little time this morning to trawl the net and have come up with a few things. It appears I'm not the only one to think there may be a connection, both to our climate and the Solar cycle/magnetic field. I won't pretend to even begin to understand all the science, so if anyone out there does, feel free to contribute. I've posted a few links so you can judge for yourselves. http://www.liv.ac.uk/earth/PG/projects/Holme2.htm http://spectrum.ieee.org/nov06/4708 http://www.ausetute.com.au/carbon14.html http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/field/sec_e.php http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/geomag/servers.shtml http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PD...I..76..957D.pdf http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi...6X.2000.00208.x http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000GeoJI.143..545D

The mods have kindly opened this as a separate thread Please give any input you can think of, even if it's blowing this to bits; my understanding of this is very basic and I'm hoping to learn. The germ of the idea that this may be contributing in some way to the elevated levels of Co2 and climate change is this: Solar output has been increasing whilst our Magnetic Field has been decreasing, could the two together mar our understanding of the increased levels of Co2 in the atmosphere? More Solar output=more Cosmic Rays Cosmic Rays react in the atmosphere and create Co2 Weaker Magnetic Field=greater levels of Cosmic Rays entering our atmosphere, hence more Co2. Any thoughts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Jethro: Once again, you make the mistake of imagining that a person who thinks that CO2 warms the climate believes that it is the only driver; this is not the case. ---------------------------- I didn't and never have; I outlined my own stance precisely because pro AGW believers have in the past presumed that doubters/naysayers denounce all human input. Maybe some do but I do not, as you do not believe human input is the only driver, there's probably quite a lot of common ground. ----------------------------- We all know that there are many natural and anthropogenic forcings to consider. The output of the Sun has been measured directly for a few years now, and prior to that, proxies (i.e. sunspot measurements) have been used to make calculations. The different types of solar output are well understood. It is almost universally accepted that changes in irradiance have contributed to warming in the 20th Century; mostly in the first half (no increasing trend in any measure since the 1950's). But when you calculate the amount of difference it makes, it only amounts to about a sixth of what would be needed to generate the warming that has been measured. Last year, Scafetta and West published a paper in which they concluded that the solar contribution to 20th century warming could arguably be 20-40% of the total, but the paper's findings have not been universally accepted; even if they are shown to be right, there's still a lot missing from the sums. For the reasons given in previous posts and links, cosmic rays are at the best an unproven source of some (minimal) variation in cloud cover, but even this conclusion is contested. Once again, there is no discernible trend in cosmic rays since the 1970's to match the trend in temperature, so where's the link? --------------------------------- I'm not saying there is a link, I was asking for opinion. My point being that although Solar irradiance is well known and measured, have those measurements been calibrated alongside magnetic field measurements. The Solar output can remain a constant but if the magnetic field differs then more Solar irradiance can penetrate our atmosphere? My molecular knowledge is I admit very fundamental (hence asking for opinion) but Cosmic Rays as a cloud former was not my point; they also create Carbon 14 which reacts with Nitrogen to create Co2. If because of a more active Sun and a weaker magnetic field, more Carbon 14 is in our atmosphere then it stands to reason, it could have contributed to the increased levels of Co2? ---------------------------------- You are right that solar variation plays an important part in the changes to the climate. You are also right that CO2 does not account for all the recent changes in climate. But this still sidesteps the central point; if CO2 causes warming, then more CO2 will cause more warming; how much more warming do we want, and how quickly do we want it to arive? ---------------------------------- The central point for me is whether or not the recent climate changes are natural/human induced and in what proportions. Have the natural causes been fully explored, do we know all of them, how they interact with each other and their interaction with any input from us. Can we make any long term decisions based upon the knowledge we currently have or are we jumping the gun? Do we run the risk of making things worse? If so how, why?

Morning all, I trust you all had a great weekend? Not sure if this is the right place to post this link but as this seems to be the busiest thread at the moment, it seemed the sensible place to glean the most opinions. I think from reading the threads, the general consensus is the climate is changing, yes it's warmed recently, possibly greater than can be explained by our current understanding of natural forces but many, including myself are yet to be convinced it's all down to AGW. With this in mind I tend to look for other possible natural causes which may have contributed-note NOT caused all the warming but partly explain it. According to the scientists, the Sun has been particularly active in recent cycles and is set to be even more active during the next one before declining after that. It's a known fact that our magnetic field protects us from Cosmic Rays and it is argued that the variance in Solar Flux has little impact upon earth temperatures because of this. Also according to the scientists, our magnetic field has been in decline since at least 1845, the decline growing more pronounced and rapid in recent times. Could this together with the increased Solar output account, for at least part of the perceived recent rise of temperature? http://www.energybulletin.net/1045.html

Being politically aware is not the same as believing in conspiracy theory. The use of scientific knowledge in this field is being used with political agendas, fact, not fantasy. In an ideal world science and politics would work hand in hand to the mutual benefit of all, we don't live in an ideal world, never have and I doubt we ever will. Where there is power and money to be made, there will always be winners and losers. I question AGW or at least the extent of our input, dismissing me and like minded people as loony conspiracy believers serves no one. Questions about the validity of the theory are there and need answering.

Why are you so damn confrontational all the time? It was a simple question, nothing more. As it happens, yes you and anyone else who argues for scientific support should go fill it up. There are posts on this thread from people who don't usually post or have never posted before, I expect last nights programme will prompt quite a few more people to read and ask questions. I want balance, a naysayers thread full of links and an empty pro AGW one isn't balanced, is it? People lead busy lives, trawling around the net takes time, it's so much easier to check out links on a thread.

Just a thought folks, there is a thread for naysayers links stuffed with links to back up/reinforce doubts and questions from the doubters point of view. There has been a thread for a few days now for the pro AGW side to post their links to do the same, why is it still empty?

Agreed, the most sensible post so far tonight.

Lol, good one Mond

one of the best.

Lou Reed, a genius.

Cheers Winston and happy shouting. I expect some quarters of this forum to be rather busy afterwards.

Dev... It's not designed to poke you or anyone else in the eye; the title is purely designed to grab attention. Will it be balanced? I doubt it. Have any of the pro AGW programmes been balanced? Both sides portray their opinion, their evidence, their facts. Hands up all those who will be shouting at the telly - from both camps.

Agreed P3.

Dev, your words of "Grubbily titled little documentary" and "calling my views a swindle can expect their words to be slung back", do not mark you out as being even remotely open minded. I accept the world has been given the evidence, the data and yes the facts, will you accept there is in all likelihood, more evidence, data and facts to be discovered and heard? My stance is and always has been that yes, I believe the climate is changing, yes I believe we probably have made some impact but what I do not believe, is that we are solely responsible. I have researched and read opposing views from both sides, both scientific papers and popular media. I have learned enough to be able to read say for instance "Ice Age Now" and "The Weather Makers" to understand and realise both have cherry picked their data. I wouldn't however dream of imagining I have enough knowledge to question the scientific community; I am after all merely a journo turned gardener. But, when respected scientists raise their hands and say "hang on, what about this" and question the popular wisdom, then they should be heard. This is the whole point of the programme, is it not? In order to pursue openness there has to be equal opportunity given to both sides, it was you, not I condemning the unheard voice.

As an aside but vaguely connected, I used to get quite a lot of lower back pain, made worse by heavy work and digging (I'm a gardener by trade), the most effective thing I've ever found to alieviate it, other than taking pain killers all the time, are magnets. I've got a couple of velcro backed pads which contain magnets, they slip inside your clothes over the tender spot and strangely enough, they really work for me. I'd recommend them to anyone who would rather not take pain killers regularly.