Yorkshiresnows

You raise a valid point in that there is a lot of literature in support of Co2 and Greenhouse gases as the main driver of recent Global warming, but all of this is dependant on Co2 inducing potent and amplifying feedback mechanisms to raise the global temperature, most based on the impacts on water vapour. In this, (the feedback mechanisms), there is a great deal of argument and certainly less consensus. ........ and I guess that here's the crux ..... if we accept that in recent years there is growing evidence of a solar effect, and if we also accept there has been a high solar output over the 20th century ....... which was never part of the computer modalling of climate, ....... how can the Co2 model still be without question? There's a lot to take in and question from both sides of the AGW argument. Y.S

Hi Blast, Agree. The science is not compelling, not at all when you look at it in detail. There is more and more literature available that questions, not whether the world has experimenced warming (particularly 1980 to 2000), but that natural cycles can explain almost all of it. It seems nothing but common sense to me, that the sun has a major impact and it looks as though we will all see in the next few years how much of an effect as we slowly ease into a Dalton or even Maunder type minima. Y.S

Hi, Many thanks for these links ... will read through. There are however an awful lot of other papers questioning the Co2 link and I do not believe that you can state 'very poor science on one paper or another'. The overall interpretation that I have stated is from several books on Global warming theory, the most recent my Peter Jackson (Chill), but looking through the IPCC documents and also some of the breakout expert working groups data on e.g. solar irradiance and cloud cover show an awful lot of 'argument' concerning interpretation and also in regards to the 'amplification factor ..... and this input of computer modelling of 'forcing'. There is no consensus on the amplification factor ...... not that I have seen anyway (arguments for and against are plentiful). Also if we look at the last century, then observational data also raises questions. Co2 has been rising (almost in a linear fashion)throughout from 1900 yet temperatures warmed from 1920 to 1940 then dipped from 1940 to 1980 prior to the recent heavy warming from the late 1980's to 2000 (where they have now flattened out with a recent small fall). These peaks and troughs also have been noted to coincide to the varying length of the solar cycle Wilde's cloud data publications and impacts on global albedo are really interesting and show a dramatic increase in surface albedo for 2002-2003, showing a big change in the pattern of cloud cover, (which would lead to a period of cooling). Wang etal 2002, Wielicki eta al 2002, Rossow and Duenas, 2004, Norris 2005 and Pinker et al 2005 formed part of a working group whose summaries indiated: Cloud cover changes (%cloud cover) have been shown to have increased between 1960 and 1980 when global temps fell, decreased after 1980 when temps began to rise, and then increased again during a time when warming stalled. The effect being significant documenting a 5% decline of low level cloud associated with a rise of 6 watts/sq metre in the mean anual flux from 1990 to 2000. Given that the IPCC figure for the overall long-term rise is just 2.5 W/sq m for the whole range of greenhouse gases over a 150 year period (1.6 of which is allocated to carbon dioxide), then it might be argued that Co2 ability to force temperature is (present, but small). Again I am at work and do not have my research papers to hand, but if you also look at solar cycles (mapping sunspot numbers to climate shifts (cold and warm cycles), this matches better than Co2 ..... why is that? Anyway, I will read up and continue to learn, your links are very useful, so thanks for that. Y.S

Hi CB, I have already put up numerous links to papers and publications that show the whole issue of how Co2 affects climate is controversial, there are numerous assumptions regarding feedback mechanisms that simply have no scientific back-up. Its association with temperature fluctuation is without doubt, its role as a main driver very suspect. I know folks are a bit fed up with my posts on cloud impact, but here's one last interesting piece of research based on a published paper by Martin Wild of the Institute of Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich and a team of contributors from the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) and Russia's Geophysical Observatory (2005): The title of the paper is 'From dimming to brightening: decadal changes in solar radiation at the Earths surface'. This paper details a general decrease of sunlight over land surfaces of the order of 6-9 watts per metre square from 1960 to 1990, with a change over beginning post 1985. Changes in both satellite derived and surface measured insolation data are inline with changes in global cloudiness .... which showed an increase until late 1980's and a decrease thereafter, on the order of 5% from late 1980 to 2002. This corresponds to an increase of 6 watts per metre square in absorbed solar irradiation by the globe. If you compare this with the IPCC stated greenhouse effect of 2.5 watts/sq m as the cumulative effect of build up since pre-industrial times, with 0.8 watts/sq m of that sum added between 1980 and 2000 from carbon dioxide alone you can see that solar input is having a 7.5x greater effect than the additional Co2 effect, leaving its computed green-house effect at about 11% of the observed late 20th century 'radiative forcing' (the term used to describe the driving mechanism within the modelled global atmosphere. This research was accepted within the IPCC Working group I report in 2007, but no text to its significance was included in the overall summary ........ Long-term trends in cloud and radiation record have been analysed only recently (Science 2005) and have shown fluctuations associated with solar activity and longterm oceanic cycles. For example data has shown a general long term rise in solar output from 1900 to 1995 with a gradual reversal thereafter (Scafetta, N. and West B. (2007), Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the northern hemisphere surface temperature records since 1960', J. Geophys. Res., 112 2007. Y.S

Hi V.P, Okay, I accept that ......... but this is really missing the thrust of the argument I was putting forward. Can you accept that the IPCC (and all of the computer models that have projections of future temperature rise) rely on an amplification factor regarding cloud that is at the very least controversial ? If this is so (and the papers you asked me to provide do show this), then the question of Co2's role in the recent rise in global temperatures should be examined (particularly so, given the steep rise from 1980 to 2000 and subsequent plateau / slight fall, since .......... which does not fit with the recent Hadley centre provided image of their projections (see UK MET site)). I have seen further data which also suggests that ENSO / PDO and other teleconnections have until 2007 also not been incorporated into the computer modelling of climate (I do not have the links for these at the moment). Going forward can we say for definite that natural cycles have not had a major part to play with anthropogenic impact a much smaller element? I don't know the correct answer to this only that there were unusual cyclic patterns that reached synergy towards the end of the last century, which could have accounted for the steep rise in global temperatures. I find this all very interesting and keeps your mind open ? Y.S

Not sure I understand your point? Please, I am not nor will ever post on here to deliberatley upset or wind somebody up. I have just been reading up on the whole Co2 thing, find the whole debate interesting and wanted to put my point across, open a discussion. Anybody and everybody has the right to critique anybody, as long as they provide a decent and argued rebuttle. I have provided peer reviewed papers to support my point that I was asked to provide. All they do is to highlight (in my opinion) that the issue of how CO2 is supposed to warm our climate is controversial and possibly flawed. I am sure that there are plenty of scientific papers available that support the role of Co2. That we have warmed is not at issue, to my mind its whether natural cycles have caused this warming, how this may have happended, and what the future holds (in my opinion a possible cooling). Anyway, enough. Y.S The more you look at Co2 its role in all this doesn't quite add up (at least to me)

Hi Mutation Research, I'm a genetic toxicologist by trade. As for titles I'd rather not, as I guess I can be associated with the use of animals - if you P.M me then I could give more info. Y.S

errhhhhhh !!! Read them, they all point to a massive amplification factor. I've given you the papers and yes they do point to 300% as was originally stated (you can always throw in the Peter Taylor book if you want to ...... but you will never read that will you !). The point is the IPCC predictions concerning Co2 rely on massive amplification via cloud effect feedback .... which is very controversial Do you know anything about publishing scientific data / papers ? I do, I've published over 12 with 4 more to come this year. To publish, you need two independent specialists in the field to peer review your data, then, the scientific journal or whatever will also view and comment if they believe you need to provide additional information or evidence for your argument. The IPCC reports are summaries, Yes, but from peer reviewed papers. What on earth is your point here anyway ? Think you need to do a little more study !! Y.S

Hi VP, My apologies, here is a link to a further discussion on the IPCC feeback query (10th April 2008) http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/has_ipcc_inflated_feedback_factor.html Y.S

Hi VP, Yes, hows about the following for starters: Lindzen, R.S (1991), 'some uncertainties with respect to water vapour's role in climate sensitivity', Proceedings of NASA workshop on the role of water vapor in climate processes, October 29-November 1, 1990 in Easton, Maryland (D.O'C. Starr and H. Melfi, eds). Lindzen, R.S, Hou, A.Y. and Farrell, B.F. (1982), 'The role of convective model choice in in calculating the climate impact of doubling CO2', J. Atmos. Sci., 39, 1189-1205 IPCC first and second Reports (available as pdf downloads free of charge) Further to the above, more recent work of the Hungarian physicist Ferenc Miskolczi (an atmospheric physicist formerly at NASA) places estimates of the warming power of CO2 much lower than the IPCC and moreover develops an argument that predicts a fall in water vapour content in the troposhere as a consequence of increased carbon dioxide - something that Miskolczi claims has actually been observed. this theory argues that compensatory mechanisms reduce the carbon effect virtually to zero. Miskolczi, F. (2007), 'Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres', Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meterological Service. 111, (1), January-March 2007, 1-40. More recently still there has been a publication in the newsletter of the American Physical Society in which Christopher Monckton outlines a critical overview in the way the IPCC has chosen its physical variables and relies upon this unproven water-vapour feedback in its equations. Monckton, C. (2008), 'Climate sensitivity reconsidered', Forum for physics and society, American Physical Society, July 2008. These lead me to believe that the foundation of carbon dioxide science is not without controversy and the assumption of a consensus on the issue unsound. Y.S

Sorry, but I do not understand your reply. This is a discussion thread right? The points I have made can be discussed, disagreed with (with some sort of explanation or evidence). Everything stated by me is backed up by peer reviewed publication. Seems okay to me. Gray Wolf dismissed my earlier post with a cast off remark about CO2. I am just backing up my case. Nothing more. Y.S

Co2 really is not that potent (in relation to global warming). Water vapour visible (cloud - reflective) and non visible refractive are and always will be .... I've added a post in the general discussion thread that goes into more detail. Ocean cycles / solar cycles and cloud (clearly cloud and ocean cycles are linked) = impact on Earths temperature. There is good recent literature to be viewed discussing this. More importantly, there is clear evidence of a synergy of cyclic events and changes in cloud cover (globally) that tie in with the warming phase from the last 1980's to 1998. With a further cyclic change thereafter. Don't forget, added warmth has to be distributed via the ocean currents, and this will always favour greater heat distribution to the poles, as this is bled from the system ice loss will result, greatest in the arctic for obvious reasons, ..... looks like we may be at the end of this process as the new negative PDO begins to exert its natural cooling effect. Y.S

I have to laugh. Okay, lets look at the facts regarding CO2 and how this is supposed to impact world temps: In relation to water vapour, co2 is one of a number of naturally occurring greenhouse gases. However, co2 is not the main greenhouse gas (though of course it is the main anthropogenic addition and hence all arguments relating to recent temp changes). The main greenhouse gas is invisible water vapour and the greenhouse 'effect' that results is also mediated by condensed water vapour (clouds). Here's a bit from my favourite book ! All textbooks quote the natural or pre-industrial level of CO2 to be 280 parts per million (approx 1 molecule in very 3000 molecules of air). This has risen to 380 -400 parts per million under the influence of fossil fuel burning etc. and it is generally agreed that natural CO2 levels have not risen appreciably (though there are certain issues with this as there is evidence to suggest a higher natural content of CO2 in the 19th century). It is perhaps lesswell known that all modellers (those influencing the computer models etc) are in agreement that on its own, even a doubling of the CO2 concentration would have a minimal effect on the overall heat balance of the planet. All the models assume an amplyfication factor in relation to carbon's interplay with water vapour. This amplifying factor is estimated in IPCC models at 300% ........ but is entirely theoretical !!! There is no evidence for it outside the models. It is based on the assumption that any warming caused by co2 also increases the capacity of the atmosphere to hold more water vapour, which is a potent greenhouse gas and hence a positive feedback is created. The IPCC summary reports and all references to this basic science do not refer to it as controversial, but controversy has surrounded this from the very outset and withi the IPCC body of experts. For example Professor Lindzen, professor of meterology at MIT (and member of IPCC) questioned this assumption (he sat on a pannel of experts to review the IPCC'S 3rd assessment report in 2001) and consistently argued that additional water vapour could eadily turn to cloud and hence reverse the supposed feedback effect (data is published 1991). To emphasise the importance of this issue: if the computed mid-range future projected warming expected from a doubling of co2 (to say 560 parts per million) were a dangerous 2.5 degrees C, this expectation would have to be reduced to 0.8 degrees C and become of less serious importance. So, just a taste of what I have been looking at these past few months, you would be very suprised at the amount of 'consensus' there is within the IPCC on many factors associated with 'man-influenced' global warming. Also I see that the UK MET have released the latest global temp anomaly charts going back over the past 50 years etc. It shows again that since 1998 there has been no overall warming of the planet with actutal temperatures departing quite widely from those predicted from computer models. Also see that Joe B has seen this and has a video discussing it. He also thinks that we will be in La Nina (strong one at that) by the end of the summer. Also very odd that the recent satellite images show massive warmth over both polar regions and yet overall world sea ice is around average ...... as Joe B has already commented, this does not add up ..... could it be that man manipulation of world temps prior to the satellite age to allow temp deviations from'normal' are a bit misleading ? Y.S

If you check out the data you will that your statement is not 100% correct (I'm at work right now, but will come back to this point later). Co2 lags behind temperature change and hence I cannot see it being a major forcing factor (please note that I have not dismissed it compeltely). Given the IPCC data for the increase in heat energy (Earth absorption, given in irradiance /metre square) for the estimated increase in CO2 since the major industrialisation compared to measured impacts of even small fluctuations in cloud cover (as per satellite data), you can see how little forcing power Co2 seems to exert (again I'll come back with published references to back this up). There is ever increasing evidence that Solar output, and Ocean cycles impact our climate, particularly during phase alignments ..... much as was seen towards the end of the last century. Is this coincidence ......... I don't think so, but hey, nothing is certain. Y.S Yes, you make good points .... agree, perhaps I'm being too bullish about global temps this year. Y.S

Agree that 2010 has started warm. But, this is no big suprise with a moderate strength El Nino and cold polar air displaced to mid lattitudes over the winter. Warm Arctic and winter and summer heat in the Southern hemisphere = Warm start. However, El Nino is collapsing and the -PDO conditions set to continue and strengthen a cooling signal over the coming few years. La Nina could well be stablished by the end of the summer. I believe that summer world temps will be down on average. Don't agree with your assessment of continuing global warming since 1998. Satellite data suggest otherwise. I am also as time goes on becoming more and more cynical of CO2 as a main driver. Cloud cover and solar absorbance being more of an issue in my mind. My thoughts on this have been heavily influenced by recent reading of the book 'CHILL' by Peter Taylor that ploughs through a lot of the data that goes into the IPPC reports as also the various disagreements within the variosu working groups. Check it out for yourself. Anyway, guess that time will tell. Y.S

Hi Gray Wolf, Well, I guess there will be a lot of controversy in this area ... which is highlighted by the IPCC acknowledging that cloud cover is an issue .... but of a somewhat unknown quantity. However I come back to the book 'CHILL' pulished in May of last year, author Peter Taylor. This lists several recent high level studies of cloud cover (published and peer reviewed) and any changes there have been over the past 20-30 years or so and more imprtantly, what type of impact that this may have on regional or global temperatures. It also discusses possible links in cloud cover with solar and ocean cycles. It would seem there is a lot of published data suggesting a significant change towards the end of the last century and that this would definately have a result of increasing absorption of solar irradiance at the Earths surface, far in excess of any impact that Co2 would have had (using the IPCC calculated energy increase per metre square of land). Anyway, all very very interesting. Y.S

Hi Folks, Been keeping a low profile recently and enjoying the wonderfull winter that we have just had. I have also taken some time reading up on the science for the pro-AGW and against AGW. One recent publication above all others has really taken my interest and that is titled 'CHILL' (I'm at work and do not have the author details, but you can search this on Amazon etc). In this work the author systematically has gone through the differeing threads that make up the recent IPCC reports as well as looking at how the various computer modelling systems work, what they include and perhaps more importantly what they do not. Without going into masses of detail, the weight of evidence (and this is all backed up by peer reviewed and published data), that includes discussion on volcanic activity, the insulatory and reflectory nature of cloud formation, the changes in world cloud cover over the past decades (from satellite data), ocean cycles and solar activity as well as carbon dioxide point point very strongly (which I was quite suprised at), at a strong natural forcing of world climate towards the latter part of the last century. The chapter on Cloud cover in particular is very interesting and indeed coupled with longer term ocean cycels (PDO etc) and solar output do fit nicely with several unusual periods of climate over the past 100 years (anomolus warmth in the 1940's, the slight cooling from 1950 to 1975 and the stronger warming signal from the late 1980's to 1998 ....... with a slight cooling evident thereafter. I am not going to stand up and shout that the Co2 theory is rubbish, acknowledgement is in the publication that this may also be having some effect. However, there are a lot of questions concerning how Co2 can possibly exert such a large impact, when for instance cloud cover is far more potent on effects on world climate (be it high level insulatory or low level shielding of solar absorption). Anyway, its all very interesting so would recommend you all have a look !!