General Climate Change Discussion

[Solar Cycles]

Yes but the world doesn't work on proof it rarely does it works on evidence. Proof is something you get after the event not before.

Proof is when all the evidence is gathered and the conclusion is there for all to see! Sadly AGW falls well short of this!

[Gray-Wolf]

A cunning plan but for the fact that we are now seeing forests dying due to the impacts of climate shift (N.America being in the news most recently) Much of the soil that is impacted by 'slash and burn' is also impoverished by the time it is allowed to grow back and the uncovering of vast tracts of forest floor during logging expeditions leads to rapid soil loss due to erosion.

[Methuselah]

Proof is when all the evidence is gathered and the conclusion is there for all to see! Sadly AGW falls well short of this!

No! Proof is what you get in hindsight. What you get a priori are expectation and theory...

[Admiral_Bobski]

That's one bit that I strongly disagree with. It's implying that the current climate change problem can't be helped and that we should just accept it and adapt. But the fact is, if a significant proportion of it is down to anthropogenic forcing, then it is an issue we can do something about, and that we should be doing something about anyway, via moving towards more sustainable ways of managing use of the planet's resources.

Other than that, though, I'm quite impressed by some of the rebuttals, it's clear that a lot of thought and proper reasoning has gone into them, and I actually agree with many of them. I'll certainly be interested to see what Dev and others have to say.

Thanks for that TWS With regards to the bit you disagree with, allow me to elaborate. I have to confess that I was not happy with that part after I had posted it, not least because it implies that I advocate a "Do Nothing" approach to climate change, which I absolutely do not. You are correct, of course: if humans are responsible for a significant proportion of warming then not only can we do something about it but we are bound by responsibility to do something.

I had intended to point out that climate, and the environment, changes - that's what it does, that's what it has always done and that is what it will always do. If it were to turn out that mankind had had no effect whatsoever then should we attempt to force the status quo and try to keep the environment in what we perceive to be an ideal state? We could seed the oceans to create an abundance CO2-absorbing creatures, but if our CO2 isn't a problem then is it the right thing to do? Could our artificial enhancement of a particular, seemingly beneficial, aspect of nature have unforeseen knock-on effects? Quite possibly.

In the meantime, and I have said this before, I advocate a policy of steady change towards pollution-free energy and a general cleaning-up, or mending, of our destructive ways. I feel that it would do more harm than good to force through such changes at an unsupportable rate, and it is clearly wrong to jump headlong into a supposed "solution" without considering the consequences - be they environmental or financial consequences, or both.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding from my admittedly badly worded passage.

CB

[Devonian]

Proof is when all the evidence is gathered and the conclusion is there for all to see! Sadly AGW falls well short of this!

At what point will 'all' the evidence be gathered?

[Solar Cycles]

At what point will 'all' the evidence be gathered?

You tell me Dev! For me, the little evidence there is draws only one conclusion. AGW is a theory based upon flawed data and scaremongering tatics! I have stated before that in 2-3 years time AGW will be a dead duck in the water! The clock is ticking!!!!!

[Devonian]

You tell me Dev! For me, the little evidence there is draws only one conclusion.

SC, you say that there will be proof of AGW 'when all the evidence is gathered in' but then contradict yourself by drawing a conclusion AGW is wrong based on 'what little evidence there is'.

So, what is to be - concusions based on 'all the evidence' or 'what little there is'?

AGW is a theory based upon flawed data and scaremongering tatics! I have stated before that in 2-3 years time AGW will be a dead duck in the water! The clock is ticking!!!!!

People have been stating AGW is/will be a dead duck for at least a decade...

[Methuselah]

You tell me Dev! For me, the little evidence there is draws only one conclusion. AGW is a theory based upon flawed data and scaremongering tatics! I have stated before that in 2-3 years time AGW will be a dead duck in the water! The clock is ticking!!!!!

Any evidence to back-up that statement?

[pottyprof]

You tell me Dev! For me, the little evidence there is draws only one conclusion. AGW is a theory based upon flawed data and scaremongering tatics! I have stated before that in 2-3 years time AGW will be a dead duck in the water! The clock is ticking!!!!!

OK.. Enough of the yah boo stuff. I'm starting to feel embarresd that I believe that this is a mainly natural event.

SC. Please show where anything says that our adding to a natural increase is not causing a problem. I think you will find out, by reading through this section of the Netweather forum, that no scientist, who has been carrying out research, objects to the fact that we are adding to the CO2. The questions are, how much is man made and what effect does that have? There are other greenhouse gasses too that can potentially add problems to any calculations. Again the question is by how much?

Start presenting some facts to back up your claim. Also check through the threads to see if your facts have been discussed before and post them in the relevent thread.

Ta muchly..

[Gray-Wolf]

. I'm starting to feel embarresd that I believe that this is a mainly natural event.

I'd be feeling a little that way over the past 2 years with the number of papers that show 'significant human impact' on climate. We all know that the planet is able to warm and cool itself in a way man is not yet able but to discount mans current impacts in favour of a 'natural' super driver is fast seeming 'mis-guided'.

We are (obviously) closing in on a time that either events or further evidence will settle the debate once and for all. GISS's bold predictions (and then sticking to their guns) will obviously be seized on by one side or the other come 2yrs time.

Beyond that we will have the next IPCC document (already much in need of revision with the wealth of new data/evidence since the last document was produced).

Before all of that we will have this years Arctic melt season......

[pottyprof]

We are (obviously) closing in on a time that either events or further evidence will settle the debate once and for all. GISS's bold predictions (and then sticking to their guns) will obviously be seized on by one side or the other come 2yrs time.

At least we agree that its make or break time, sooner rather than later, for either side of the coin..

[noggin]

Beyond that we will have the next IPCC document (already much in need of revision with the wealth of new data/evidence since the last document was produced).

When is the next one due, G-W, and when was the last one?

[Gray-Wolf]

When is the next one due, G-W, and when was the last one?

IPCC AR4 released 17th Nov 2007

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

and I believe AR5 is due in 2013 (do correct me if I'm wrong).

[Solar Cycles]

Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the IPCC and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1 deg F per decade and 5-6 deg C by 2100, which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, engery and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicted on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric C02 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.. However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenairo for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5c per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030- 2060m, and renewed global cooling from 2060-2090 ( Easterbrook, D.J, 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008, b )Easterbrook and Kovanen 2001 ) Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest 30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the little ice age. Global climate changes have been far more intense ( 12-20 times as intense in some cases ) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20-100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8c) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier natural climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977-1098.. After several decades of studying glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range, Prof Don J Easterbrook showed a distinct pattern of glacial advances and retreats ( the Glacial Decadal Osscillation ) that correlated well with climate records. In 1992, the Mantua published the Pacific Decadal Oscillation curve showing warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean that correlated remarkably well with glacial fluctuations. Both the GDA and the PDO matched global temperature records and were obviously related. All but the latest 30 years of changes occured prior to significant CO2 emissions so they were clearly unrelated to atmospheric CO2. The signficance of the correlation between GDO, PDO, and the global temperature is that once this connection has been made, climatic changes during the past century can be understood, and the pattern of glacial and climatic fluctuations over the past millennia can be reconstructed. These patterns can then be used to project climatic changes in the future. Using the pattern established for the past several hundred years, in 1998 Prof Don J Easterbrook projected the temperature curve for the past century into the next century. Ironically his prediction was made in the warmest year of the past three decadesand at the acme of the 1977-1998 warm period. At that time the Prof Don J Easterbrookhad projected a graph ( which unfotunately I can't get to download ) indicating global cooling begininning about 2005 until about 2030, then renewed warming from about 2030-2060 ( unrelated to CO2- just continuation of the natural cycle ), then another cool period from about 2060-2090. This was an approimation, but it was radically different from the IPCC prediction, time would obviously show which projection will be correct. Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1deg f as forecast by the IPCC but has cooled slightly until 2007-2008 when global temperatures turned sharply downward. In 2008, NASA satellite imagery confirmed the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to it's cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggest that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC. The IPCC prediction of global temperatures, 1deg f warmer by 2011 and 2 deg f by 2038 stand little chance of being correct. NASA's imagery showing that the PDO has shifted to it's cool phaseis right on schedule as Prof Don J Easterbrook predicted. This PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures Nort Amercia of cool, wetter climates during it's cool phases and warmer, drier climates during it's warm phases. The switch of the PDO cool mode to warm mode in 1977 initiated several decades of global warming. The PDO has now switched to it's cool mode. Comparisons of historical global climate warming and cooling over the past century with PDO and NAO oscillations, glacial fluctuations, and sunspot activity show strong correlations and provide a solid data basefor future climate change projestions. The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the past century, has switched back and forth between these two modes every 25-30 years. In 1997 the Pacifif abruptly shifted from it's cool mode to it's warm mode, and this initiated global warming from1977-1998. Comparisons of historical global warming and cooling over the past century with PDO and NAO oscillations, glacial fluctuations, and sun spot activity show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. As shown by the historical pattern of GDOs and PDOs over the past century and by corresponding global warming and cooling, the pattern is part of ongoing warm/cool cycles that last 25-30 years. The global cooling phase from 1880-1910, characterized by advances of glaicers worlwide, was followed by a shift to the warm phase PDO for 30 years, global warming, and rapid glaicer recession. The cool phase returned in 1945 accompanied by global cooling and glacial advance for 30 years. Shift to the warm phase PDO in1977 initiated global warming and recession of glaciers that persisted until 1998. Global warming is over for now. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.08%) was not the cause of the warming- it was a continuation of natural cycles that occured over the last 500 years. The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than cooling from about 1945-1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like 1880-1915 than the more moderate 1945-1977 cycle.

[Chris Knight]

Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the IPCC and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1 deg F per decade and 5-6 deg C by 2100, which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, engery and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicted on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric C02 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.. However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenairo for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5c per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030- 2060m, and renewed global cooling from 2060-2090 ( Easterbrook, D.J, 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008, b )Easterbrook and Kovanen 2001 ) Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest 30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the little ice age. Global climate changes have been far more intense ( 12-20 times as intense in some cases ) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20-100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8c) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier natural climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977-1098.. After several decades of studying glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range, Prof Don J Easterbrook showed a distinct pattern of glacial advances and retreats ( the Glacial Decadal Osscillation ) that correlated well with climate records. In 1992, the Mantua published the Pacific Decadal Oscillation curve showing warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean that correlated remarkably well with glacial fluctuations. Both the GDA and the PDO matched global temperature records and were obviously related. All but the latest 30 years of changes occured prior to significant CO2 emissions so they were clearly unrelated to atmospheric CO2. The signficance of the correlation between GDO, PDO, and the global temperature is that once this connection has been made, climatic changes during the past century can be understood, and the pattern of glacial and climatic fluctuations over the past millennia can be reconstructed. These patterns can then be used to project climatic changes in the future. Using the pattern established for the past several hundred years, in 1998 Prof Don J Easterbrook projected the temperature curve for the past century into the next century. Ironically his prediction was made in the warmest year of the past three decadesand at the acme of the 1977-1998 warm period. At that time the Prof Don J Easterbrookhad projected a graph ( which unfotunately I can't get to download ) indicating global cooling begininning about 2005 until about 2030, then renewed warming from about 2030-2060 ( unrelated to CO2- just continuation of the natural cycle ), then another cool period from about 2060-2090. This was an approimation, but it was radically different from the IPCC prediction, time would obviously show which projection will be correct. Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1deg f as forecast by the IPCC but has cooled slightly until 2007-2008 when global temperatures turned sharply downward. In 2008, NASA satellite imagery confirmed the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to it's cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggest that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC. The IPCC prediction of global temperatures, 1deg f warmer by 2011 and 2 deg f by 2038 stand little chance of being correct. NASA's imagery showing that the PDO has shifted to it's cool phaseis right on schedule as Prof Don J Easterbrook predicted. This PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures Nort Amercia of cool, wetter climates during it's cool phases and warmer, drier climates during it's warm phases. The switch of the PDO cool mode to warm mode in 1977 initiated several decades of global warming. The PDO has now switched to it's cool mode. Comparisons of historical global climate warming and cooling over the past century with PDO and NAO oscillations, glacial fluctuations, and sunspot activity show strong correlations and provide a solid data basefor future climate change projestions. The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the past century, has switched back and forth between these two modes every 25-30 years. In 1997 the Pacifif abruptly shifted from it's cool mode to it's warm mode, and this initiated global warming from1977-1998. Comparisons of historical global warming and cooling over the past century with PDO and NAO oscillations, glacial fluctuations, and sun spot activity show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. As shown by the historical pattern of GDOs and PDOs over the past century and by corresponding global warming and cooling, the pattern is part of ongoing warm/cool cycles that last 25-30 years. The global cooling phase from 1880-1910, characterized by advances of glaicers worlwide, was followed by a shift to the warm phase PDO for 30 years, global warming, and rapid glaicer recession. The cool phase returned in 1945 accompanied by global cooling and glacial advance for 30 years. Shift to the warm phase PDO in1977 initiated global warming and recession of glaciers that persisted until 1998. Global warming is over for now. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.08%) was not the cause of the warming- it was a continuation of natural cycles that occured over the last 500 years. The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than cooling from about 1945-1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like 1880-1915 than the more moderate 1945-1977 cycle.

Quick! While still editable, turn it into paragraphs please SC, so we can read it without eyestrain!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Quick! While still editable, turn it into paragraphs please SC, so we can read it without eyestrain!

Thanks to a quick Google, try here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10783

:unsure:

CB

[Chris Knight]

Thanks to a quick Google, try here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10783

:unsure:

CB

Ta, CB.

[LadyPakal]

Isn't it accepted practise to cite a source?

[Android]

when its so obviously plagiarized, why waste time sourcing it?

[LadyPakal]

Just out of politeness. *shrug*

I dunno - a link to the site would have been more useful as it contains graphs to illustrate certain points and is also in nice readable paragraphs. Maybe he accidentally posted before he was done (we've all hit return at the wrong time before, I'm sure) & didn't get chance to edit his post before the edit time limit ran out.

[osmposm]

Hmmm....benefit-of-the-doubt and all that, LadyP, but that is a very generous interpretation indeed.

In view of the time, imagination and effort that is put into so many posts by many people here - and on a very important subject - I feel, to be frank, insulted.

Ossie

[Methuselah]

Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the IPCC and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1 deg F per decade and 5-6 deg C by 2100, which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, engery and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicted on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric C02 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.. However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenairo for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5c per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030- 2060m, and renewed global cooling from 2060-2090 ( Easterbrook, D.J, 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008, b )Easterbrook and Kovanen 2001 ) Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest 30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the little ice age. Global climate changes have been far more intense ( 12-20 times as intense in some cases ) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20-100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8c) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier natural climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977-1098.. After several decades of studying glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range, Prof Don J Easterbrook showed a distinct pattern of glacial advances and retreats ( the Glacial Decadal Osscillation ) that correlated well with climate records. In 1992, the Mantua published the Pacific Decadal Oscillation curve showing warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean that correlated remarkably well with glacial fluctuations. Both the GDA and the PDO matched global temperature records and were obviously related. All but the latest 30 years of changes occured prior to significant CO2 emissions so they were clearly unrelated to atmospheric CO2. The signficance of the correlation between GDO, PDO, and the global temperature is that once this connection has been made, climatic changes during the past century can be understood, and the pattern of glacial and climatic fluctuations over the past millennia can be reconstructed. These patterns can then be used to project climatic changes in the future. Using the pattern established for the past several hundred years, in 1998 Prof Don J Easterbrook projected the temperature curve for the past century into the next century. Ironically his prediction was made in the warmest year of the past three decadesand at the acme of the 1977-1998 warm period. At that time the Prof Don J Easterbrookhad projected a graph ( which unfotunately I can't get to download ) indicating global cooling begininning about 2005 until about 2030, then renewed warming from about 2030-2060 ( unrelated to CO2- just continuation of the natural cycle ), then another cool period from about 2060-2090. This was an approimation, but it was radically different from the IPCC prediction, time would obviously show which projection will be correct. Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1deg f as forecast by the IPCC but has cooled slightly until 2007-2008 when global temperatures turned sharply downward. In 2008, NASA satellite imagery confirmed the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to it's cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggest that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC. The IPCC prediction of global temperatures, 1deg f warmer by 2011 and 2 deg f by 2038 stand little chance of being correct. NASA's imagery showing that the PDO has shifted to it's cool phaseis right on schedule as Prof Don J Easterbrook predicted. This PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures Nort Amercia of cool, wetter climates during it's cool phases and warmer, drier climates during it's warm phases. The switch of the PDO cool mode to warm mode in 1977 initiated several decades of global warming. The PDO has now switched to it's cool mode. Comparisons of historical global climate warming and cooling over the past century with PDO and NAO oscillations, glacial fluctuations, and sunspot activity show strong correlations and provide a solid data basefor future climate change projestions. The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the past century, has switched back and forth between these two modes every 25-30 years. In 1997 the Pacifif abruptly shifted from it's cool mode to it's warm mode, and this initiated global warming from1977-1998. Comparisons of historical global warming and cooling over the past century with PDO and NAO oscillations, glacial fluctuations, and sun spot activity show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. As shown by the historical pattern of GDOs and PDOs over the past century and by corresponding global warming and cooling, the pattern is part of ongoing warm/cool cycles that last 25-30 years. The global cooling phase from 1880-1910, characterized by advances of glaicers worlwide, was followed by a shift to the warm phase PDO for 30 years, global warming, and rapid glaicer recession. The cool phase returned in 1945 accompanied by global cooling and glacial advance for 30 years. Shift to the warm phase PDO in1977 initiated global warming and recession of glaciers that persisted until 1998. Global warming is over for now. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.08%) was not the cause of the warming- it was a continuation of natural cycles that occured over the last 500 years. The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than cooling from about 1945-1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like 1880-1915 than the more moderate 1945-1977 cycle.

Phew!! I can't say I didn't ask for it...

[Solar Cycles]

I do apologise everyone, but I'm having trouble with my computer due to a virus. And on top of that I'm currently only able to type with one hand, due to being in a sling after having shoulder surgery.

[noggin]

IPCC AR4 released 17th Nov 2007

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

and I believe AR5 is due in 2013 (do correct me if I'm wrong).

6 years. That's a long time between reports. Do they produce any updates or similar in between? (other than Dr Pachauri's ramblings )

[osmposm]

I do apologise everyone, but I'm having trouble with my computer due to a virus. And on top of that I'm currently only able to type with one hand, due to being in a sling after having shoulder surgery.

You do suffer a lot of computer issues, SC, it must be a nuisance: I remember you were having problems providing links at the end of Nov, and probs with (ironically) cut & paste in mid-Dec....perhaps we should club together and buy you a new computer - or at least a virus protection subscription!

I'm sorry you're still having physical probs, too. I think you were in a sling about 6 weeks ago (certainly well before Xmas): I'm amazed you manage to post as much as you do - I've just typed this post with one hand as an experiment, and it certainly takes a great deal longer to get it right.

Ossie

Edited January 27, 2009 by osmposm