Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Confused about CO2? - then read this


Chris Knight

Recommended Posts

Guest diessoli

Hi Jethro,

So are you suggesting we know all we need to know then?

Another version of CO2, it's role and impact:

http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

DISCLAIMER: Being posted purely to demonstrate there are many differing views, from many different scientists; exactly the same reason for posting the other link earlier.

Yes there are many differing views (probably on almost all topics you can think of). The question is whether all of those have the same weight.

I would really appreciate if people would accompany links with a comment other than "interesting read" or something. Otherwise it is hard to get a discussion going since we always have to clear the ground first.

I would also wish we could limit our discussions to proper scientific publications.

Beck for instance is not a scientist (i.e. he is not reasearching and publishing), he is a school teacher and his writings and data manipulations have been debunked and exposed multiple times elsewhere. Go for example to reaclimate.org and search for Beck.

And please don't let us start to discuss whether "Energy and Environment" is a credible scientific journal. That has also been done to death elsewhere.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
"Can anyone please tell me where the proof that the rise in Co2 is causing global warming,there seems to no proof ,but we keep on being told there is."

Keep searching, you won't find it. You'll find a hypothesis which works in a lab, you'll find correlation, what you won't find is proof. There's no agreement on how much CO2 will cause temperatures to rise or by how much. There's no agreement on sinks. There's no agreement on residual times. There's dispute on natural, normal levels. There's dispute on the accuracy of ice core data and historical measurements. There's dispute on ocean out gassing. There's dispute on lead/lag times. There's dispute that CO2 can only lag not lead temperature increases. In fact, all in all there's very little agreement except, in theory increased CO2 should lead to higher temperatures. It's more a case of you pays your money, you takes your choice; lots of voices from both sides all saying different things.

Why proof? Can either of you please prove to me you exist?

Asking for proof is a fools errand and in climate change debates it's usually a deliberate distraction. No one knowledgeable can either give it or demand it - imo.

And there is disagreement and disagreement, most of the 'disagreement' you cite is about the fine detail. There IS agreement the CO2 is a ghg - Ok you can find the odd person who disagrees but there is actually no agreement the Earth is round on that basis!

Jethro, your post doesn't exactly endorse an anthropogenic role in climate does it B) . This is why people get perplexed with your stance. You seem, when pushed, to accept climate change yet then we see post like the above. I am perplexed about what your stance is: there is warming we're not responsible? That is the clear implication of the above to me. There is warming and we might be responsible - I can't see how you could think that given the above but you do seem to claim that's what you think at times. Which? I simply don't know.

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada

I'm thinking more along the lines that the hemispheric circulation may be in a state of reorganization this winter. The flow has really shifted far south across Asia from Saudi Arabia all the way to the Phillipines, the jet stream is not much further north than 20-25 N anywhere, then it rises slightly across the Pacific, but even when it hits the west coast here it is still generally depressed. This has allowed very cool water to fill the North Pacific as far south as about 30 N from north of Taiwan and south of Japan to Oregon.

Time will tell if this is some blip in the records associated with a strong La Nina event, or something more sustained. The results here have been rather subtle on the coast, we are getting a bit more snow than usual but not many storms as such, but in the mountains there has been a tremendous snowfall with a lot more to come this week. Everyone who comes back from trips through the mountain passes remarks on it, there has been twice the normal amount where normal was already fairly deep.

We'll have to keep an eye on this pattern and see if it breaks down or locks in and returns next winter, because it might imply also a locking in of the rather odd circulation pattern over Europe with the depressed Atlantic jet, the ridge over France and the big split in the flow across eastern Europe that gathers itself over the eastern Med and continues on from there.

I don't think it's a permanent thing, but it certainly isn't a sign of runaway global warming, rather a possible hint of a pattern shift to a cooler climate in the natural variability. Then the question would become, how does that interact with the warming effects of greenhouse gases. My point about China was that you can see which factor has the upper hand (so far) in any battle between the trends. This is China's version of 1947.

If anyone wants to look at some rather unusual maps, I would suggest the India meteorological department, they have maps that cover most of south Asia. China's website is a bit user unfriendly, but on the Indian site I just noticed the jet stream chugging along across north-central India and heading straight east without even a hint of a northerly push in Thailand or Vietnam. And the latest maps show the arctic air entrenched over all of China and even spilling in modified form into North Vietnam now. Japan is quite a bit colder than its average but the anomalies seem largest over south central China and Uzbekistan with a mini-polar vortex over Iran of all places.

You have to wonder if all this is some giant rebound from the ice anomaly last autumn, sort of nature's way of fixing up the damage we may be doing, or a case of momentum transfer gone a little off the scale.

Edited by Roger J Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
Jethro, your post doesn't exactly endorse an anthropogenic role in climate does it B) . This is why people get perplexed with your stance. You seem, when pushed, to accept climate change yet then we see post like the above. I am perplexed about what your stance is: there is warming we're not responsible? That is the clear implication of the above to me. There is warming and we might be responsible - I can't see how you could think that given the above but you do seem to claim that's what you think at times. Which? I simply don't know.

Once again there is a debate going on about what Jethro's stance is on the issue. I have stated before, and I'll probably state again, that I have always understood Jethro's stance, so it can't be that confusing. Occasionally she may post something that doesn't specifically mention the fact that man may have some influence on climate, but it gets a bit ponderous in a debate to always word your posts in that form - besides, it's perfectly acceptable if a group of people agree with a topic and you have some doubts to argue from a Devil's Advocate viewpoint in an attempt to find the middle ground.

That said, it is really completely irrelevant what anyone's position is anyway. So P3, SF, and your good self are "Pro" (for want of a better word). Jethro, HP and I are "Anti" (for equal want of a better word). So what? If we're debating the content of each other's posts then our own particular viewpoints are neither here nor there. Knowing broadly what "camp" each poster sits in is more than enough for us to be able to debate the point. I don't understand this obsession with tagging everyone on the boards with a specific label, as if that will help us in our analysis of reports, articles and studies.

CB

EDIT - typo

Edited by Captain_Bobski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Once again there is a debate going on about what Jethro's stance is on the issue. I have stated before, and I'll probably state again, that I have always understood Jethro's stance, so it can't be that confusing. Occasionally she may post something that doesn't specifically mention the fact that man may have some influence on climate, but it gets a bit ponderous in a debate to always word your posts in that form - besides, it's perfectly acceptable if a group of people agree with a topic and you have some doubts to argue from a Devil's Advocate viewpoint in an attempt to find the middle ground.

That said, it is really completely irrelevant what anyone's position is anyway. So P3, SF, and your good self are "Pro" (for want of a better word). Jethro, HP and I are "Anti" (for equal want of a better word). So what? If we're debating the content of each other's posts then our own particular viewpoints are neither here nor there. Knowing broadly what "camp" each poster sits in is more than enough for us to be able to debate the point. I don't understand this obsession with tagging everone on the boards with a specific label, as if that will help us in our analysis of reports, articles and studies.

CB

I'm not tagging I'm trying to understand and to do that I ask questions.

I will say I think that if anyone thinks about anything for a long enough (and we've all surely done that...) they will come to a conclusion. I'm trying to figure out Jethro's conclusion.

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
I'm not tagging I'm trying to understand...

What need is there to understand Jethro's position that specifically? Some skeptics have more doubts than others - is the skeptic with fewer doubts not a skeptic after all?

CB

EDIT (in response to Dev's edit!) - I thought it obvious that Jethro's conclusion is that there is some uncertainty over the role of CO2 in global temperature change. How great that uncertainty is is irrelevant - CO2 is either less responsible, as responsible or more responsible than is currently believed. Most skeptics fall under the "less responsible" category - how much less responsible is neither here nor there so far as the debate is concerned.

Edited by Captain_Bobski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
I'd like to know Jethro's stance once and for all, she is, afterall, a large contributor to these threads.

But is it really that important?

B)

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
I believe it is. Others do too.

I don't want to be pedantic, and I appreciate the desire to understand a person's viewpoint, but in a debate all you need is for one person (or group) to argue one point of view and another person (or group) to argue the opposite point of view. Through such polarised debate the middle ground can be found (in theory!).

If people are that interested in others' exact viewpoints then maybe we should do what Jethro suggested a while back and make a dedicated thread for every member to state their specific viewpoint, and that way we could avoid these repeated calls for clarification.

B)

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
Sounds like a plan B)

I shall get to work on my manifesto then!

B)

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'd really like to see is for Jethro to make a case for what IS causing the warming, rather than what isn't. If the billions of tonnes of GHG's we are emitting isn't warming us then what is?

Same for other sceptics too. It all seems to be a lot of spreading of uncertainty and doubt rather than concise arguments for an different explanation.

A concise post on why humans cannot be the main cause of the current period of warming and thus an explanation of what IS the cause.

Edited by Magpie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Good morning everyone.

Seems you pro lot are confused by my stance, personally I don't think I'm confusing or contrary in the slightest and as Capt'n B said, the sceptic side have never been confused by my stance. I do think a posters individual view on this subject is often used as a side-tracking issue in debate, after all if we're discussing CO2 (sorry Hiya, still can't figure out how to do that little 2) what does it matter what I or anyone else thinks, we're discussing science here and that usually comes down to facts, not views.

I'm criticized by many on here for only posting links and papers which approach this subject from an anti AGW stand point - fair comment. I've said time and again, my interest is the percentage game, not are we causing a problem but how much of a problem. In order to evaluate the AGW element, by necessity this means examining the natural in order to subtract one from the other. Those who argue in favour of AGW never post links or papers which are contrary to that argument, I've never seen Stratos, Dev, or Roo or anyone else for that matter, post a link for natural causes and yet you'll all say you are not arguing that all the warming is due to anthro causes; is this not equally confusing, can you all not be accused of the same blinkered view point that I stand accused of?

I have clarified my stance on this many, many times; for those of you who have missed it, here is the last time:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...42868&st=51 post 55.

As this seems to be a continual source of confusion which endlessly haunts me, I think a dedicated thread for us all to post a clarification of our stance is a good plan. I'll leave it in your capable hands Capt'n, I'll refine my thoughts and beliefs so there can be no possible confusion and post my manifesto in there.

p.s There's confusion over lead/lag time for CO2 and temperature, none of us can solve that puzzle as yet but a similar lead/lag puzzle I can solve is, Captain Bob led, I lagged, he was here before myself. If there's any coat tails involved, then it follows I must be the one clutching them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
What I'd really like to see is for Jethro to make a case for what IS causing the warming, rather than what isn't. If the billions of tonnes of GHG's we are emitting isn't warming us then what is?

Same for other sceptics too. It all seems to be a lot of spreading of uncertainty and doubt rather than concise arguments for an different explanation.

Surely not B)

It's the Sun wot did it? Though of course the how is rather difficult to say... 1, 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Magpie & Dev, science has always worked on accepted, known parameters, any thing which deviates from what is accepted has to prove why it is right, and the accepted knowledge is wrong. Once upon a time it was believed by all that the world was flat, along came a few bright sparks who said, no it isn't, it's round; the onus was upon them to prove their theory.

The accepted theory is that climate is not static, we have warm periods, we have cold ones, we have data to prove this. Along come a few bright sparks who say actually we're getting warmer, quicker than we've ever done before and it's because of us, we're causing this change, this is outside the bounds of normal climate variation. I therefore put it to both of you, that the onus, from a purely sound scientific point of view, is on both of you to provide non-refutable evidence to convince the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Magpie & Dev, science has always worked on accepted, known parameters, any thing which deviates from what is accepted has to prove why it is right, and the accepted knowledge is wrong. Once upon a time it was believed by all that the world was flat, along came a few bright sparks who said, no it isn't, it's round; the onus was upon them to prove their theory.

The accepted theory is that climate is not static, we have warm periods, we have cold ones, we have data to prove this. Along come a few bright sparks who say actually we're getting warmer, quicker than we've ever done before and it's because of us, we're causing this change, this is outside the bounds of normal climate variation. I therefore put it to both of you, that the onus, from a purely sound scientific point of view, is on both of you to provide non-refutable evidence to convince the world.

It is, just like it's up to you to back up those posts claiming the extra CO2 isn't anthropogenic in origin with 'non-refutable evidence to convince the world' - you haven't ;)

I will say that I think the links I posted higher up explaining why the extra CO2 is anthropogenic in origin are pretty much irrefutable.

Btw, I accept you have explained you position before, it's just that you posting often extremely sceptical stuff (and the Spencer stuff is just that - it really does fly in the face of accepted, 'shown' science) leaves me wondering what room you have for the view there is more than a minimal anthropogenic effect on climate.

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magpie & Dev, science has always worked on accepted, known parameters, any thing which deviates from what is accepted has to prove why it is right, and the accepted knowledge is wrong. Once upon a time it was believed by all that the world was flat, along came a few bright sparks who said, no it isn't, it's round; the onus was upon them to prove their theory.

The accepted theory is that climate is not static, we have warm periods, we have cold ones, we have data to prove this. Along come a few bright sparks who say actually we're getting warmer, quicker than we've ever done before and it's because of us, we're causing this change, this is outside the bounds of normal climate variation. I therefore put it to both of you, that the onus, from a purely sound scientific point of view, is on both of you to provide non-refutable evidence to convince the world.

That wasn't what I was getting at... the theory that humans are the main cause of global warming is one theory. As you don't seem to believe this theory is correct, there must be an alternative theory that is right. What is this theory and what is the evidence to support it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire

There are checks and balances in every thing and we should look at carbon cycle modelling in a different light to climate modelling. Carbon cycle modelling is still in its infancy when compared to climate modelling. The volumes of CO2 emissions and sinks by both Sea and land do dwarf Human effects but all it takes is a slight shift in the balance for things to change. The argument could be that as well as increased CO2 due to man burning fossil fuels changes in forestry cover and ocean content are changing CO2 levels. Certainly forestry changes can be traced back to anthropological changes. In terms of the ocean we are seeing big changes in plankton concentrations which are part of the main process for absorption of CO2 by oceans. Whether these changes can be linked to the warming which has already occured (plankton appear to like semi cool water) or weather circulation changes and ozone depletion is being investigated. In terms of Ozone perhaps we should look at the global warming and how you get more thunderstorms and transferral of ozone from the troposphere to the stratosphere which in theory should correct the balance. Certainly la nina and el nino patterns can have an effect with outgoing long wave radiation being significantly increased during the current la nina and hence the earth has been slightly cooled.

I dislike assertions that everything is understood now about climate and seems clear to me that both anthropological and natural variations of CO2 are occuring what is important is the amount of change attributable to each source of change. Anthropological changes come high on my list of major causes although I suspect fossil fuel burning may be only one of many activities by which we are upsetting the balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Dev & Magpie;

All I've ever said in refute of AGW is "how much of the warming is down to CO2"? That's it. Nothing more. Why oh why is that so bl**dy controversial? Do you both say ALL the warming is down to CO2? No, you don't. Do I say ALL the warming is down to natural? No I don't.

I even opened a thread called something like "Ponderings from Somerset" where I asked if the pro side say some of it is natural, some of it is manmade and the sceptic side say some of it is natural, some of it is manmade, then aren't we all in essence arguing the same thing, doesn't it all come down to percentages? Why the antagonism?

I post all manner of things, the subject interests me, it does not nor has it ever meant I believe every, single word contained in the links. There are so many sides to this subject, so many things which may or may not contribute, I look at them all. To do otherwise surely would mean an incomplete understanding? If you take for example the Arctic; taking the ice loss figures, even on a yearly basis reveals nothing more than a decline in ice. Does it tell you why? Does it tell you how? No it does not. Should we infer from the diminishing ice that warmer air temperatures are melting the ice? Yes, if we want a simplistic view. If however you dig a little more then you find lots of interesting, relevant information which hasn't received quite so much publicity as the the cute, cuddly Polar Bears losing their homelands. There's a wealth of information, peer reviewed to boot which says actually, we had a similar situation up there a while back, it was caused by ocean currents, these have periodic cycles and they will/have switched back to a previous mode and we might see an ice recovery soon. Quite how you measure the anthro proportion of a problem, without first discerning natural variation is beyond me.

There's a post from Roger earlier discussing a possible re-arranging or shift of climate, on-going at the moment, could it explain the strange weather patterns this year, will it continue. It's quite possible. It's also more than possible this is entirely independent of anthro source. We experienced the Great Pacific Climate shift in 1976, sod all to do with us, we didn't cause or influence it. I posted a paper a while back from a reputable source which said the PDO was showing signs of changing back again to the state it was in, prior to 1976, perhaps it has, perhaps this is causing the changes Roger was talking about. I also posted a paper which I think came from NOAA or perhaps NASA, cannot remember which but it said the Arctic Oscillation was also showing signs of switching to back to a more permanent negative mode.

The PDO, AO, NAO are all major drivers which impact upon climate in various parts of the world, seeking an understanding of these does not mean I'm saying "it's all natural", it's saying have the changes we are witnessing been caused in any measure by these, if so, by how much. How is this denying AGW?

Yes, Spencer is an extreme sceptic but he's also eminently qualified to pass judgement. He's not a crackpot loon neither is he a scientist venturing into waters outside his discipline. You don't get to be Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama or be a recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement by not knowing your stuff, do you? We've had many conversations on here along the lines of who's more able to make an informed opinion, who's more qualified, who should we listen to. Well, Spencer is more than qualified, his is an informed, intelligent opinion, his views count. Whether anyone on here agrees with them is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent
That wasn't what I was getting at... the theory that humans are the main cause of global warming is one theory. As you don't seem to believe this theory is correct, there must be an alternative theory that is right. What is this theory and what is the evidence to support it?

That's a bit of an argument switch, we are either talking about the role of CO2 or human effects the 2 don't have to be the same. I have put my argument forward and shown the evidence backed up by the British Antarctic Survey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
I'm just confused about how even apparently academic websites let alone BBc news, C4 news, most newspapers and others can't see it's CO2

.....doesn't take much to confuse you then, Hiya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
What need is there to understand Jethro's position that specifically? Some skeptics have more doubts than others - is the skeptic with fewer doubts not a skeptic after all?

CB

EDIT (in response to Dev's edit!) - I thought it obvious that Jethro's conclusion is that there is some uncertainty over the role of CO2 in global temperature change. How great that uncertainty is is irrelevant - CO2 is either less responsible, as responsible or more responsible than is currently believed. Most skeptics fall under the "less responsible" category - how much less responsible is neither here nor there so far as the debate is concerned.

CB, you repeatedly miss my point, or else are not reading my replies. The difference is you accept at face value what Jethro says she believes. I suffer a dissonance because although she SAYS she accepts that some of the warming is man made, every post she makes is arguing for the part that is not, which leads me to conclude that by extrapolation, if this "not man made" argument can apply to part of the warming, then it might apply to it all.

If you ask one thousand people, at random, if they have ever committed a crime the majority will say "no". I am not for one moment questioning Jethro's sincerity, she strikes me as hugely sincere; all I am saying is that what people say they are, and what they are, is not always the same. How many times on the news did you see the parent of some thug protesting their innocence. We are programmed to believe those we care for. You agree with Jethro's stance and are inclined to believe her: I am happy to accept her stated position but am repeateldy struck by the mismatch between that stated position and the arguments she puts forward.

Why it matters is made very clear in my post in another place.

Magpie & Dev, science has always worked on accepted, known parameters, any thing which deviates from what is accepted has to prove why it is right, and the accepted knowledge is wrong. Once upon a time it was believed by all that the world was flat, along came a few bright sparks who said, no it isn't, it's round; the onus was upon them to prove their theory.

The accepted theory is that climate is not static, we have warm periods, we have cold ones, we have data to prove this. Along come a few bright sparks who say actually we're getting warmer, quicker than we've ever done before and it's because of us, we're causing this change, this is outside the bounds of normal climate variation. I therefore put it to both of you, that the onus, from a purely sound scientific point of view, is on both of you to provide non-refutable evidence to convince the world.

And again, I refer you to my "essay". If we were arguing about how crisp to have the bacon because, like Heston Blumenthal, we've got a hundred piggeries full of the stuff if we spoil a rasher, then that would be fine. However, from the point of view of taking action I don't think we ought to be waiting for absolute proof. Just like in the civil court where "balance of probabilites" suffices, so it should be enough here.

I have certainly provided more than enough analysis of the Hadley data down the years to make tenuous at the very least any suggestion that warming in the UK is natural.

By the way, your last paragraph is doing it again. Asking us to make the point that the warming is not natural. I thought you accepted that some of it wasn't? Presumably what you mean is we have to prove that the part of the warming that isn't natural is man-made?

Edited by Stratos Ferric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
Good morning everyone.

...by necessity this means examining the natural in order to subtract one from the other. Those who argue in favour of AGW never post links or papers which are contrary to that argument, I've never seen Stratos, Dev, or Roo or anyone else for that matter, post a link for natural causes and yet you'll all say you are not arguing that all the warming is due to anthro causes; is this not equally confusing, can you all not be accused of the same blinkered view point that I stand accused of?

Jethro, I comment freely on the links provided by others. My position is simple, and often repeated in the many numerical analyses I provide - particularly in discussions with Noggin I seem to recall. There has always been variation in the climate, the history of Hadley shows this, and the amplitude in any period of time is typically upto around +/-1C around the running mean (I posted on this point more than once during the autumn). Currently, taking 1C off where we are now (around 10.5c) would still leave us at an unusually high level (9.5C). I don't need to explain the natural elements that might be at play, because they are factors that have always been present, e.g. ENSO, local SSTs variation, and sun spot cycle. There is no evidence that these have increased and I am assured that others, like yourself, will be avidly searching for such evidence and will flag it as soon as it appears.

My position on the residue is clear: it's GHG. Continuing to argue about this is like watching a house burn and argue about where the fire started. It's wasted effort, and a distraction from attention that would far better be focussed on doing something about the problem.

...but on the Indian site I just noticed the jet stream chugging along across north-central India and heading straight east without even a hint of a northerly push in Thailand or Vietnam. And the latest maps show the arctic air entrenched over all of China and even spilling in modified form into North Vietnam now. Japan is quite a bit colder than its average but the anomalies seem largest over south central China and Uzbekistan with a mini-polar vortex over Iran of all places.

You have to wonder if all this is some giant rebound from the ice anomaly last autumn, sort of nature's way of fixing up the damage we may be doing, or a case of momentum transfer gone a little off the scale.

Roger, the jet rarely goes far north of India in winter because of the huge massif stretching across N Asia. Historically it has always tended to fragment, in much the same way as there tends to be a standing wave E of the Great Divide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
.... the history of Hadley shows this, and the amplitude in any period of time is typically upto around +/-1C around the running mean (I posted on this point more than once during the autumn). Currently, taking 1C off where we are now (around 10.5c) would still leave us at an unusually high level (9.5C). ...

Is that for the CET series?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
CB, you repeatedly miss my point, or else are not reading my replies. The difference is you accept at face value what Jethro says she believes. I suffer a dissonance because although she SAYS she accepts that some of the warming is man made, every post she makes is arguing for the part that is not, which leads me to conclude that by extrapolation, if this "not man made" argument can apply to part of the warming, then it might apply to it all.

If you ask one thousand people, at random, if they have ever committed a crime the majority will say "no". I am not for one moment questioning Jethro's sincerity, she strikes me as hugely sincere; all I am saying is that what people say they are, and what they are, is not always the same. How many times on the news did you see the parent of some thug protesting their innocence. We are programmed to believe those we care for. You agree with Jethro's stance and are inclined to believe her: I am happy to accept her stated position but am repeateldy struck by the mismatch between that stated position and the arguments she puts forward.

Why it matters is made very clear in my post in another place.

No, I am not missing your point - I am arguing against your point, which is a rather different thing. I don't accept jethro's stance statement at face value - I actually appreciate the stance, being that it is very similar to my own (and no, I have not pilfered her stance, nor she mine). As I have said time and time again, debates become rather ponderous if, in every single post, you have to reaffirm your belief that part of the effect is manmade - if you are arguing that natural drivers have more of an effect than is currently proposed then you have to argue about the natural effect. It merely serves to confuse the issue (if only because of lengthy, and unneccesary, explanations) if one has to constantly make note of the fact that man is also involved. There is no mismatch between Jethro's position and her arguments whatsoever, and to continually complain about your own perception of a mismatch only serves to detarct from the debate that we all (supposedly) want to have.

The bottom line is that you either accept AGW as it is proposed or you do not. If you accept it then you argue from a point of acceptance. If you do not accept it then you argue from a point of non-acceptance. Repeatedly stating your partial acceptance just makes everything more complicated.

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

"CB, you repeatedly miss my point, or else are not reading my replies. The difference is you accept at face value what Jethro says she believes. I suffer a dissonance because although she SAYS she accepts that some of the warming is man made, every post she makes is arguing for the part that is not, which leads me to conclude that by extrapolation, if this "not man made" argument can apply to part of the warming, then it might apply to it all."

Working on this basis of your argument Stratos, then your position on this forum is evidently ALL warming is anthro in origin.

"By the way, your last paragraph is doing it again. Asking us to make the point that the warming is not natural. I thought you accepted that some of it wasn't? Presumably what you mean is we have to prove that the part of the warming that isn't natural is man-made?"

No. You're doing it again Taking a post out of context and presenting it to mean something else entirely. I was quite clearly replying to earlier posts from Magpie, my answer was clear and in context.

"I don't need to explain the natural elements that might be at play, because they are factors that have always been present, e.g. ENSO, local SSTs variation, and sun spot cycle. There is no evidence that these have increased and I am assured that others, like yourself, will be avidly searching for such evidence and will flag it as soon as it appears."

Which neatly and succinctly demonstrates and supports my explanation for not posting pro AGW links, there is no need, others already do so. Two sided argument, equally valid for both sides so why endlessly accuse me of something you yourself feel, is a rule you can legitimately abide by?

Bacon? Why the fixation? Don't you know it's bad for your health?

CET - AGW is global, measuring it's impact by this rule is as meaningless as the snow in China and record low temperatures in the SH. If one is valid, then so are the others.

Waiting for proof? I challenge each and everyone of you to find any post, any where on this forum that I have made, which advocates this. This oft quoted mis-representation is reeled out time and again as a moral high ground for the pro side to take. Somehow, to be sceptical of the science is to be a rampant consumer with no regard for the environment or the planet. Balderdash!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I've ever said in refute of AGW is "how much of the warming is down to CO2"? That's it. Nothing more. Why oh why is that so bl**dy controversial? Do you both say ALL the warming is down to CO2? No, you don't. Do I say ALL the warming is down to natural? No I don't.

I don't think there's any need for swearing. I think my question was very simple - you don't believe humans are the main cause of the warming do you? So what is? And where's the evidence?

The deniers point seems to be that AGW is wrong but they rarely offer a cohesive alternative theory. Usually its a mix of the sun, some volcanoes, orbits etc. But no cohesive explanation to explain most of the current warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...