An Inconvenient Truth

[noggin]

Now will you believe us?

If "current global warming is occurring in response to human activities", then to what do they attribute the previous hot periods?

Could be coincidence, you know. Us chucking out muck and temperatures having gone up (until recently, that is ). Perhaps people are putting two and two together and coming up with five as they are only using the methods that they know. We do not know all methods. It is much speculation. People assuming that everything must fit together and that we wonderful human beings know how it all works. We can't know it all. There is a probably immeasurable amount that we don't know.

Hi, Scribbler

[Scribbler]

Yes, I know. But my contacts down there have been commenting that it is "absolutely freezing", a "bitterly cold" Winter (for them, that is!)

The Antipodes are having a cold old time and there are my own modest observations of my climate cooling down.

I put it all together and arrive at the conclusion that any GW has now stopped and we have tipped over into a cooldown.

Hi Noggin - don't rush into global cooling just because Australia has a cold winter! They've only kept records down there for at most 100 years or thereabouts.

From keeping an eye on their weather, it seems that they've been under the influence of strong high pressure systems centered to the south of Australia.

Those highs have been around forever and usually based over Australia - but have they moved further south?

Is that related to the movement of Hadley cells away from the equator rather than evidence of a cooldown?

I stand to be corrected!

[drgl]

Hi Noggin - don't rush into global cooling just because Australia has a cold winter! They've only kept records down there for at most 100 years or thereabouts.

From keeping an eye on their weather, it seems that they've been under the influence of strong high pressure systems centered to the south of Australia.

Those highs have been around forever and usually based over Australia - but have they moved further south?

Is that related to the movement of Hadley cells away from the equator rather than evidence of a cooldown?

I stand to be corrected!

So they've kept records for 100 years but the pro GM people are harping on that it's the last 30 YEARS that have seen the steepest increase in temps. So 100 years of data should be just fine? What will you people say if we have another cold winter this year? (some refuse to agree that last winter was cold but went very quiet on the subject when i posted pics of ice frozen trees in MARCH!). Yes there is no doubt that we were colder in the late 70's/80's-anyone who lived through it will know BUT some on here(me included) are noticing an increase in the cold where it matters-ON THE GROUND in the REAL WORLD. NOT satellite data,NOT a flawed system of measuring "average temps" NOT "corrected data"!! but REAL hands on experience. If this winter is mild wet & windy then the past few were a small blip. HOWEVER,if i observe another colder winter there's no doubt there has been a pattern change IMO. And that's all it is-In My Opinion.

[Dawlish]

So they've kept records for 100 years but the pro GM people are harping on that it's the last 30 YEARS that have seen the steepest increase in temps. So 100 years of data should be just fine? What will you people say if we have another cold winter this year? (some refuse to agree that last winter was cold but went very quiet on the subject when i posted pics of ice frozen trees in MARCH!). Yes there is no doubt that we were colder in the late 70's/80's-anyone who lived through it will know BUT some on here(me included) are noticing an increase in the cold where it matters-ON THE GROUND in the REAL WORLD. NOT satellite data,NOT a flawed system of measuring "average temps" NOT "corrected data"!! but REAL hands on experience. If this winter is mild wet & windy then the past few were a small blip. HOWEVER,if i observe another colder winter there's no doubt there has been a pattern change IMO. And that's all it is-In My Opinion.

Yes, it is your opinion. No need to shout it, but the opinions on here which are of people "noticing" changes mean very, very, little. I don't mean to belittle such observations, (I've always been a great supporter of an amateur recorders' network) such as pictures of snow in March, but you must realise, in saying and reading, that these observations are terribly small scale, not in any way standardised, unscientific, tiny dataset, tiny areally and statistically useless.

Globally, last year was the equal warmest ever recorded. This year, even with a weak El Nina event at the start (neutral now), presently looks like it will easily get into the top 10 warmest years ever. Every one of the 6 years of the 21st century, globally, has been in the top 10 warmest ever recorded.

No matter what we notice in our tiny little corner of the world, it is those measures which actually count.

Paul

Edited June 23, 2006 by Dawlish

[Scribbler]

Venus, as some of you seem to have missed the point completely, is not only labelled as Earth's sister planet, but it also is a fine example of the nth degree of what you are talking about. Dismissing it out of hand is tantamount to sticking your head in the sand.

I’m not impressed by the thought that Venus is anything like the earth apart from the fact that both planets revolve around the sun.

This is Venus:

The atmosphere consists mainly of carbon dioxide, droplets of sulphuric acid, and only trace amounts of water have been detected.

The high density of the atmosphere results in a surface pressure 90 times that of Earth

Venus rotates on its axis once every 243 Earth days, while it orbits the Sun every 225 days - its day is longer than its year!

Venus rotates retrograde, or "backwards," spinning in the opposite direction of its orbit around the Sun.

As Venus moves forward in its solar orbit while slowly rotating "backwards" on its axis, the cloud-level atmosphere zips around the planet in the opposite direction from the rotation every four Earth days, driven by constant hurricane-force winds.

How this atmospheric "super rotation" forms and is maintained continues to be a topic of scientific investigation.

About 90 percent of the surface of Venus appears to be recently solidified basalt lava; it is thought that the planet was completely resurfaced by volcanic activity 300 to 500 million years ago. Large-scale tectonic activity does not exist.

Venus rotates too slowly to generate the type of magnetic field that Earth has.

If Venus was my sister I’d have had her put down at birth!

Edited June 23, 2006 by Scribbler

[Scribbler]

And that's all it is-In My Opinion.

As Dawlish says – no need to shout!!!

I was referring to 100 years of records in Australia.

Their Australian summer climate has warmed considerably, especially in the last 30 years.

This Australian winter happens to be cold because of a climatic change in their weather patterns.

We are undergoing a climatic change as well.

We will undoubtedly be influenced by meltwater from the Arctic – but only for a while, I hope.

[Methuselah]

As you can see there is some correlation but Venus does not fit the profile. Distance, in the case, is not the sole predictor of surface temperature. Might it well be that Venus has a greenhouse effect? Is it also the case that there has been no anthropological activity on Venus? How can this happen if there is no natural process for this to occur?

Venus, as some of you seem to have missed the point completely, is not only labelled as Earth's sister planet, but it also is a fine example of the nth degree of what you are talking about. Dismissing it out of hand is tantamount to sticking your head in the sand.

So what your saying is, is that atmospheric CO2 causes a 'greenhouse effect'? Ergo, anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 also causes a 'greenhouse effect' - yes? What's the difference between the two?

[drgl]

When people don't listen you have to shout Wait and see as you know no more than me what the future holds-if you do kindly email me this Saturday's lottery numbers Observations on the ground mean nothing.....oh OK.

[Scribbler]

kindly email me this Saturday's lottery numbers

If you think I'm going to share them!!!!!

[drgl]

:lol: :lol:

If you think I'm going to share them!!!!! :lol:

was worth a try

[Dawlish]

When people don't listen you have to shout

And when you do, do people listen more carefully?

You have not read, or you have not understood, a single word of what I wrote. After reading my post about local observations, you wrote "Observations on the ground mean nothing.....oh OK." Surely you can't think that I believe that? If you do, you have missed the point of local, amateur, observations contributing very, very, little to measuring Global Warming by a country mile!

Paul

Edited June 23, 2006 by Dawlish

[drgl]

And when you do, do people listen more carefully?

You have not read, or you have not understood, a single word of what I wrote. After reading my post about local observations, you wrote "Observations on the ground mean nothing.....oh OK." Surely you can't think that I believe that? If you do, you have missed the point of local, amateur, observations contributing very, very, little to measuring Global Warming by a country mile!

Paul

"(I've always been a great supporter of an amateur recorders' network) such as pictures of snow in March, but you must realise, in saying and reading, that these observations are terribly small scale, not in any way standardised, unscientific, tiny dataset, tiny areally and statistically useless."

"useless"

adjective

of no use; not working or not achieving what is needed

You keep looking at you CET values which IMO are flawed. Me and you will never agree on this subject-only time will tell who's correct. You state the figures are showing we are still warming,my observations dictate otherwise. I have no axe to grind on this subject. As i've already said :-

"If this winter is mild wet & windy then the past few were a small blip. HOWEVER,if i observe another colder winter there's no doubt there has been a pattern change IMO. And that's all it is-In My Opinion"

That's wait and see eh?

[Somerset Squall]

"If this winter is mild wet & windy then the past few were a small blip. HOWEVER,if i observe another colder winter there's no doubt there has been a pattern change IMO. And that's all it is-In My Opinion"

That's wait and see eh?

Surely we would need a few more colder winters than that to be sure about a pattern change. If this Winter is cold it still could be a small blip. If there were a run of 5 cold winters for example, then perhaps it could be considered a pattern change.

[drgl]

Surely we would need a few more colder winters than that to be sure about a pattern change. If this Winter is cold it still could be a small blip. If there were a run of 5 cold winters for example, then perhaps it could be considered a pattern change.

totally agree-i've been saying the next 10-15 years. I've only observed this since 2000-most noticable changes in 2004 and 2005. What i mean is if this winter shows another slight increase the "pattern" is still there. Just could be a small blip but as i've said people say i haven't even observed what i have!

[Somerset Squall]

totally agree-i've been saying the next 10-15 years. I've only observed this since 2000-most noticable changes in 2004 and 2005. What i mean is if this winter shows another slight increase the "pattern" is still there. Just could be a small blip but as i've said people say i haven't even observed what i have!

I see what you mean now. Yes, we need a few harsh winters yet for any confirmation.

[Devonian]

OK.

There are erroneous claims that climate change and the levels of essential gases increasing the rate of change is antropological in nature. This happened to Venus without any intervention from any civilisation. To claim that this sort of system behaviour cannot occur naturally is, at best, simply wrong.

I wasn't claiming that there are actually Venusians. I was making the point that to claim that the rate of climate change and the increase in essential gases are obviously human in origin is wrong.

Venus never has had 4x4, and has never burnt fossil fuels. The point is that catastrophic climate change occured there without any of our help; it could be occuring here, too.

You, I, and everyone else simply do not know.

Nope.

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

[Devonian]

oooohh baby :lol: Show me the evidence, please.

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

[Devonian]

:lol: I'll read it all later, but the suffix to the document states: "Caveat: This is not my field. Corrections and amendments, especially by professionals, are welcomed"

One can only presume this is not peer-reviewed, either.

(PS I almost fell of my chair - the joy of the internet is that you can find anything to fit your argument - whatever that might be)

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.

[Dawlish]

"(I've always been a great supporter of an amateur recorders' network) such as pictures of snow in March, but you must realise, in saying and reading, that these observations are terribly small scale, not in any way standardised, unscientific, tiny dataset, tiny areally and statistically useless."

"useless"

adjective

of no use; not working or not achieving what is needed

You keep looking at you CET values which IMO are flawed. Me and you will never agree on this subject-only time will tell who's correct. You state the figures are showing we are still warming,my observations dictate otherwise. I have no axe to grind on this subject. As i've already said :-

"If this winter is mild wet & windy then the past few were a small blip. HOWEVER,if i observe another colder winter there's no doubt there has been a pattern change IMO. And that's all it is-In My Opinion"

That's wait and see eh?

"Statistically useless"; not "useless".

If you observe another colder winter - and this winter was only colder than the 1970-2000 average, not colder than the long-term CET average and all previous UK 21st Century winters have been warmer than the 1970-2000 average, so your dataset would be all of 2 years - there will not have been a pattern change, except in your own opinion.

I'm afraid that your appreciation of statistics and your understanding of statistical relevance, leaves much to be desired, drgl!

Remember: 2 cold winters do not a summer make!

Paul

Edited June 23, 2006 by Dawlish

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm not certain that the notion of humans having caused the rise in CO2 is "irrefutable", but there is certainly a lot of very strong evidence that sways the balance of probability firmly in that direction.

I agree that a few cold samples don't mean a great deal. For example, I mentioned that the Southern Hemisphere land masses were 25th coolest on record last month- but that in itself doesn't mean that the warming is reversing, you would need a few years with negative anomalies (or at least significantly smaller positive anomalies) being reported in order for it to signify a reversal of the trend.

[Devonian]

First point, first paragraph, first two sentences:

"Time and again, some people claim that human activities are only a minor source of atmospheric CO2 which is swamped by natural sources. Compared to natural sources, our contribution is small indeed"

He then goes on to explain that the Anthropogenic CO2 is somehow different from natural CO2 (must be different C ions, then - but there's no paper, or source to verify this - if indeed that's what's meant) But regardless of the admitted small proportions it's "of truly geologic proportions"

I think it stands, without explanation, that this is logical nonsense.

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.

[Devonian]

I'm not certain that the notion of humans having caused the rise in CO2 is "irrefutable", but there is certainly a lot of very strong evidence that sways the balance of probability firmly in that direction.

I agree that a few cold samples don't mean a great deal. For example, I mentioned that the Southern Hemisphere land masses were 25th coolest on record last month- but that in itself doesn't mean that the warming is reversing, you would need a few years with negative anomalies (or at least significantly smaller positive anomalies) being reported in order for it to signify a reversal of the trend.

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)?

[Devonian]

I'll read the rest of the weekend and I'll check out the sources. If you want to be taken seriously, you'd best be prepared to stand by this, and it's sources!

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.

Keep your temper; I'll propertly read the paper over the weekend. I'll also check out the sources. I'll also check out who pays for http://www.radix.net. Believe me, I'll leave no stone unturned. I presume you've read and understood it so you can properly, and readily argue what I dig out, huh?

No! Devonian, you have made the claim claim that the rise in CO2 is irrefutable in that it's all down to humans. I think we'll deal with that before we go on, eh? If I can refute it and you have no standing argument - will you apologise?

Of course. Over to you.

[Devonian]

One last thing.

I am arguing against "There is irrefutable evidence that the rise in concentration of CO2 is a consequence of mans activities"

My stance is that a significant proportion of it is natural, or cannot, yet, be assigned to man's activities. I will show that that the correlation between the CO2 rise in concentration cannot directly be attributed to the evil that men do. I'll report my findings (based on the sole piece of evidence you've provided) Mon/Tues next week here.

If I can find inconsistency in any of the source, or the document, then I think it will stand that the document is invalid. Do you agree with this? (remember this document is 10 years old and climatology has moved on an awful lot since this was written)

I, of course, will apologise if there is such a strong statistical link (bayesian, chi-squared - whatever) that my position is untenable

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....

[Methuselah]

Well, I don't know about you guys? But I aint going to let anyone suggest that I deny the existence of natural sources of greenhouse gases, or of natural cycles of climate change...Such natural sources/cycles have existed since day one, they exist now, and will always exist! It's just that, IMO, their existence says nothing about the veracity of anthropogenic emissions. To imply that it does is a logical sleight of hand! :lol:

But, I would appreciate it if someone could tell me just how it is, that a naturallly-produced CO2 molecule differs in its opacity to LW radiation from an anthropogenic one, significantly enough to render it climatologically neutral. I'm sorry, but the chemistry and physics I did in my degree never covered that anomaly! :lol: