Now they blame clean air ... I am losing the plot

[Roger J Smith]

Now they blame clean air (for Amazonian drought) --

I am losing the plot (if I ever had it)

:o :o :o :o :o :o

If you would be so kind as to investigate the Metoffice site, you will find a detailed story about how cleaner air has been linked to Amazonian drought. Actually, I think the title is not that close a match to the story line.

What I find really difficult to accept is that the AGW lobby, cult or whatever, has now decided to retro-fit its theoretical perspective to any minor variations it can detect in the climatic records of the past half century or more. This trend is not entirely new, I've heard rumblings of it before. It seems that all the grime from coal was keeping the climate unnaturally cool for some convenient period (whenever it was cool, apparently) and that when we cleaned up the coal like good little boys and girls, then it started to get much, much warmer because we forgot to turn off the carbon dioxide.

All of this somehow "explains" to scientists vastly superior to you and I, how the Amazon rain forest is suffering from drought more frequently.

It just couldn't possibly have nothing to do with the coal, the cleaner air later on, or the activities of the six billion of us on this apparently doomed planet, could it?

I mean, is anyone really that sure that all of these events would not have happened if only a few hundred million medieval peat-burning human beings were around to witness it?

I am finding some of these pronouncements to be so far-fetched as to bring disrepute on the whole notion that we have some up and running climate science that can explain everything, when at the same time it can't (routinely) even foresee that two weeks from a given date there will be two weeks of warm or cold weather.

Care to comment? Should we be firing up those dirty coal power stations again, or should we just pay the Chinese to start up a few extra ones? I can't quite follow the New Science to where it is going (and I freely admit I have given up trying).

[Devonian]

Now they blame clean air (for Amazonian drought) --

I am losing the plot (if I ever had it)

:o :o :o :o :o :o

If you would be so kind as to investigate the Metoffice site, you will find a detailed story about how cleaner air has been linked to Amazonian drought. Actually, I think the title is not that close a match to the story line.

What I find really difficult to accept is that the AGW lobby, cult or whatever, has now decided to retro-fit its theoretical perspective to any minor variations it can detect in the climatic records of the past half century or more. This trend is not entirely new, I've heard rumblings of it before. It seems that all the grime from coal was keeping the climate unnaturally cool for some convenient period (whenever it was cool, apparently) and that when we cleaned up the coal like good little boys and girls, then it started to get much, much warmer because we forgot to turn off the carbon dioxide.

"Sulphate aerosol particles arising from the burning of coal in power stations in the 1970s and 1980s have partially reduced global warming by reflecting sunlight and making clouds brighter." What's your problem with that?

All of this somehow "explains" to scientists vastly superior to you and I, how the Amazon rain forest is suffering from drought more frequently.

It just couldn't possibly have nothing to do with the coal, the cleaner air later on, or the activities of the six billion of us on this apparently doomed planet, could it?

I mean, is anyone really that sure that all of these events would not have happened if only a few hundred million medieval peat-burning human beings were around to witness it?

C'mon Roger, theres no way that could be the magnitude of emission both of aerosols and CO₂ we've/we're producing.

I am finding some of these pronouncements to be so far-fetched as to bring disrepute on the whole notion that we have some up and running climate science that can explain everything, when at the same time it can't (routinely) even foresee that two weeks from a given date there will be two weeks of warm or cold weather.

Care to comment? Should we be firing up those dirty coal power stations again, or should we just pay the Chinese to start up a few extra ones? I can't quite follow the New Science to where it is going (and I freely admit I have given up trying).

Comment? Yes, I thought we'd done with using the word 'cult'? I'm a 'AGW accepter' - thus I'm part of the cult? I'm no more a member of a cult than you are of the cult of AGW scepticism.

So, as to the Met O story, I think we all should read it an digest it before we start name calling

Edited May 11, 2008 by Devonian

[johnholmes]

Yes as D says read the whole text on the Met O site, then go into all the links they provide. All I've done is read their text and it seems okay to me. It does illustrate as the Met O lead scientists quotes the complex nature of what is happening and suggests some ideas as to why.

No Roger I don't think its quite as you try and headline it.

To all please read the full text and if you have time then at least some of the links about the research being done and some of the ideas it suggests.

Edited May 11, 2008 by johnholmes

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Roger

Indeed, but there'll be a few who will take it hook line and sinker...but as you say even forecasting 2 weeks ahead is beyond any form of accuracy traditionally.

As you point out Roger which is obviously going to be missed is this line in your text

Actually, I think the title is not that close a match to the story line.

Also don't forget we must drastically reduce CO2 to prevent furhter drought and thus starve the vegetation of the gas it needs to thrive.....yep what the hell are we to do B)

BFTP

Edited May 11, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Please feel free to try and convince me otherwise, but isn't the language used in the first post of this thread precisely what we're trying to get away from?