General Climate Change Discussion

[noggin]

So why a virtually dead sun but temps still way above normal....

I don't know that temperatures are still way above normal, as you put it, but there has to be a heat "storage" effect from a previously more active sun........just like a night storage heater.

[Solar Cycles]

I don't know that temperatures are still way above normal, as you put it, but there has to be a heat "storage" effect from a previously more active sun........just like a night storage heater.

That is correct, the lag effect will be a few years. After reading SF rant it just goes to show how closed minded this debate as become. Let's look at the facts, very active sun = A warming world. Low Solar activity = A cooling world, that's is what we are seeing now!

[Iceberg]

But the lag didn't use to exist. ?. when people where matching solar mins with lower temperatures, why should it exist now?.

How can it exist when the sea is largely negative, PDO negative, ENSO signal negative all year. etc..... There is nowhere that could have retained the heat....

[Admiral_Bobski]

But the lag didn't use to exist. ?. when people where matching solar mins with lower temperatures, why should it exist now?.

How can it exist when the sea is largely negative, PDO negative, ENSO signal negative all year. etc..... There is nowhere that could have retained the heat....

Of course the lag used to exist! It may not have come up in debate, but that's a rather different matter. Here are some sources for you:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0203/0203497v1.pdf

(Indeed, we found a significant, positive sun-climate correlation for most of the period AD1720-1950 (i.e. after the Maunder minimum and until the recent past).)

Lewis and Freese found a variable correlation of between 0 and 10 years (with the zero value occurring during the Maunder Minimum when there was little to no solar activity).

http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/sol...past-100-years/

(The strong correlation between reconstructed temperature and solar activity suggests solar forcing as a main driver for temperature variations during the period 1250-1850 in this region. The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response, underlining the importance of indirect sun-climate mechanisms involving ocean induced changes in atmospheric circulation.)

A new paper (8th December 2008) listed as "in press" in Geophysical Research Letters by Eichler []et al suggests a time lag of between 10 and 30 years (which seems a little on the high side, even to me, but since I cannot access the paper itself I can't really comment on the assertion).

http://ks.water.usgs.gov/waterdata/climate...age.galway.html

(Hydrologic time series in selected regions in the western two-thirds of the United States of America (USA) are shown to correlate with solar-irradiance variations lagged 4-5 years.

)

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/sunclimate.html

(The sensitivity of climate to solar radiation changes, as defined earlier, is not well known. A conservative estimate is that a 0.1 percent change in solar total radiation will bring about a temperature response of 0.06 to 0.2°C, providing the change persists long enough for the climate system to adjust. This could take ten to 100 years.)

It's a rather more complex matter than simply "the sun gets more active, the earth gets hotter." Time lags, varying periodicity and multiple climatological systems (atmospheric, hydrospheric and so on) all serve to complicate the matter to the extent that the true effect of solar irradiance on Earth's climate system is not actually known.

CB

[Iceberg]

Ow come on, taken from your second link.

"The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response, underlining the importance of indirect sun-climate mechanisms involving ocean induced changes in atmospheric circulation. Solar contribution to temperature change became less important during industrial period 1850-2000 in the Altai region."

We have a 10-30 year lag( this is hardly a match if they need to vary it all by such a wide time frame. Secondly they seem to have noticed that there is less contribution in the last 100-150 years.

Taken from the first paper.

"We found that the strength of the correlation is not at all constat in time: in fact, the correlation increases and decreases between 0.12 and 0.71".

Again similar to my previous point if the correlation is so variable and you have to apply such a fudge factor then how on earth can it provide evidence that solar forcing is causing the increase.

If you take the other sources into account and solanky you get that there is a lag of between 2 and 100 years but no description of how exactly this lag is produced....now to me that's a pretty important fudge factor

Again I say if there is this build in warming due to solar cycles which most people say is ocean based. Why given a negative PDO, negative ENSO etc do we not have average temperatures at least.?.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Ow come on, taken from your second link.

"The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response, underlining the importance of indirect sun-climate mechanisms involving ocean induced changes in atmospheric circulation. Solar contribution to temperature change became less important during industrial period 1850-2000 in the Altai region."

We have a 10-30 year lag( this is hardly a match if they need to vary it all by such a wide time frame. Secondly they seem to have noticed that there is less contribution in the last 100-150 years.

Taken from the first paper.

"We found that the strength of the correlation is not at all constat in time: in fact, the correlation increases and decreases between 0.12 and 0.71".

Again similar to my previous point if the correlation is so variable and you have to apply such a fudge factor then how on earth can it provide evidence that solar forcing is causing the increase.

If you take the other sources into account and solanky you get that there is a lag of between 2 and 100 years but no description of how exactly this lag is produced....now to me that's a pretty important fudge factor

Again I say if there is this build in warming due to solar cycles which most people say is ocean based. Why given a negative PDO, negative ENSO etc do we not have average temperatures at least.?.

The point of the papers that I have posted is that they all agree there is a time lag, even if they disagree on the length of that lag. In all fairness, one would expect the time lag to vary depending upon the amount of energy already in the Earth system at the time of the solar effect (if you put something that's at 100C in an oven that's at 200C then it'll take longer to change noticeably than an object put in at 0C).

I find it staggering that people can suppose that solar effcts on earth must be instantaneous - light's the fastest thing in the universe and even that takes 8 minutes to get here, plus time to bounce around off objects and end up in our eyes so that we can see. Energy in the form of heat takes a bit longer than light to filter through a system (how long does it take for your house to warm up if you turn on one radiator?).

If you want to talk about fudge factors you should take a look at the climate models...

CB

[Iceberg]

But your missing by point CB, if you saying that the effect can be anything between 2 to 100 years anything will always fit into that. Unless you know the mechanism for the time lag(I am not saying there isn't a time lag, nor have I ever, but there is nothing to indicate it might be more than 2 years) we've had rising and falling solar cycles in the last 30 years but the trend throughout this for global temperatures remains upwards.

But my initial response remains unanswered. The oceans have cooled, if they are the area responsible for the time lag then, if there are large negatives at work PDO, ENSO etc, you would expect the global temperature to be average at least currently and they are not. This suggests a decoupling from ocean/atmospheric processes or at least a change in their base behaviour to allow for the given trend of rising surface temperatures due to CO2.

[Admiral_Bobski]

But your missing by point CB, if you saying that the effect can be anything between 2 to 100 years anything will always fit into that. Unless you know the mechanism for the time lag(I am not saying there isn't a time lag, nor have I ever, but there is nothing to indicate it might be more than 2 years) we've had rising and falling solar cycles in the last 30 years but the trend throughout this for global temperatures remains upwards.

But my initial response remains unanswered. The oceans have cooled, if they are the area responsible for the time lag then, if there are large negatives at work PDO, ENSO etc, you would expect the global temperature to be average at least currently and they are not. This suggests a decoupling from ocean/atmospheric processes or at least a change in their base behaviour to allow for the given trend of rising surface temperatures due to CO2.

No Iceberg, it is you who are missing the point - the Sun has an effect on Earth temperatures; that effect is subject to time lag; that time lag is dependant upon a variety of conditions on planet Earth which lead to varying lengths of delay. Did I say that it was solely an oceanic phenomenon? No. The climate system is far more complicated than that.

You constantly ask for people to back up their assertions, which I have done. You insist that the supporting literature is peer-reviewed and not blogs or opinion pieces, and so that is what I have provided. And yet you utterly reject my proposition, despite it being a widely-held belief in the scientific community.

Now I remember why I stopped posting...

CB

[Iceberg]

Ow don't get like that CB, As I've said above I've never said that there isn't a time lag, of course there is. If your saying that there is a time lag with the heat being stored in the atmosphere and not the oceans then that is the first time I've heard of that and would appreciate any evidence. Air is much less likely to be able to store the heat than water.

What I am saying is that various people have claimed that temperatures can map to sun,(remember the great climate scandal on C4 where they showed a graph of temperature that perfectly matched solar). Now that that link has broken down the claim is that there can be a lag. However that lag has always been attributable to the oceans storing the heat from previous warm periods. Now that the oceans are nolonger storing the heat and temps are still above average I am waiting to hear what the next claim is.

All I've said is that if you can apply a fudge factor of between 2 - 100 years without mentioning the mechanism of the fudge factor then you can make anything correlate with anything.

Your papers are interesting but I am not sure they are proving the point.

[Admiral_Bobski]

As I've said above I've never said that there isn't a time lag, of course there is.

Oh, because comments like this one - "So why a virtually dead sun but temps still way above normal.... " (post #20 of yours above) suggests that you expect an instantaneous (or virtually instantaneous) effect.

If your saying that there is a time lag with the heat being stored in the atmosphere and not the oceans then that is the first time I've heard of that and would appreciate any evidence. Air is much less likely to be able to store the heat than water.

What I am saying is that various people have claimed that temperatures can map to sun,(remember the great climate scandal on C4 where they showed a graph of temperature that perfectly matched solar). Now that that link has broken down the claim is that there can be a lag. However that lag has always been attributable to the oceans storing the heat from previous warm periods. Now that the oceans are nolonger storing the heat and temps are still above average I am waiting to hear what the next claim is.

Here's an idea that springs to mind, based on the argument you are giving - perhaps the heat that was in the oceans, in the absence of external forcing, is being released into the atmosphere, thereby keeping the atmosphere warm and cooling the oceans.

I'm not saying that I subscribe to this idea necessarily (I haven't thought it through thoroughly), but it seems a semi-plausible explanation at such short notice! Also bear in mind that the oceans aren't static, and some heat is bound to have been taken to lower depths.

All I've said is that if you can apply a fudge factor of between 2 - 100 years without mentioning the mechanism of the fudge factor then you can make anything correlate with anything.

Your papers are interesting but I am not sure they are proving the point.

I don't know why you have to resort to the derisive term "fudge factor" - does everything in the climate system react at the same time, and in the same timespan? Can there not be various lags of differing lengths depending upon which aspect of the system is causing the lag to occur?

And you still haven't explained why you feel that a current solar minimum should cause us to have immediate record-breaking cold spells...

CB

[noggin]

Some of the arguments put forward on here help explain why in less sophisticated times people believed the world to be flat.

................................................................................

...................

I do, however find it bizarre that the world over all these stupid, misguided, people have found themselves in positions of influence,

I hope I have managed to separate these two extracts adequately!

Stratos, both of these points could be flung back at the AGW camp, you know. Perhaps it is they who are the "flat earthers". After all, a growing number of scientists are now openly saying that they disagree with this AGW stuff, plus it was never a wholly accepted theory anyway.....there was no consensus.

Also, re the second extract.........that works both ways, y'know!

.................................................................

As an afterthought, with regard to your phrase "less sophisticated times".....there is, IMHO, a lot to be said for simplicity when compared with so-called sophistication.

[osmposm]

Now I remember why I stopped posting...

Oh, come on, Cap'n, keep to it, pleeeeeease. You and Ice are batting it nicely back and forwards, and none of it to my eyes seems disrespectful. I think it's a really good discussion, and hugely interesting and informative.

Always remember that it's not really your opponent you're trying to convince - pretty much impossible while the debate is going on (though the clever ones will take a good argument on board for the future). It's the less informed onlookers like me who gain from the tussle. Think of this as the Oxford Union: you are the distinguished protagonists, we are the audience who will get to vote (literally or metaphorically) at the end.

I, for one, would be desperately disappointed if you stopped.

Ossie

[Admiral_Bobski]

Oh, come on, Cap'n, keep to it, pleeeeeease. You and Ice are batting it nicely back and forwards, and none of it to my eyes seems disrespectful. I think it's a really good discussion, and hugely interesting and informative.

Always remember that it's not really your opponent you're trying to convince - pretty much impossible while the debate is going on (though the clever ones will take a good argument on board for the future). It's the less informed onlookers like me who gain from the tussle. Think of this as the Oxford Union: you are the distinguished protagonists, we are the audience who will get to vote (literally or metaphorically) at the end.

I, for one, would be desperately disappointed if you stopped.

Ossie

Thanks for that Ossie

I shall write as long as I can keep my dander up, and as often as my Christmas committments allow me! (Today's been a quiet day )

I think the ball's currently in Iceberg's court...

CB

[pottyprof]

I thought that the science of CO2 in the atmosphere was now generally accepted. If not then we should all be worried that Governments around the world are now taking the issue seriously and attempting to reduce consumption of carbon as energy.

Are these the same people that fly to these conferences to do with the environment? Surely the more carbon friendly approach would be the good old conference call over the internet? If I can do it, so can they. The only science of CO2 they know is how to create it.. Surely after the criticisms of Kyoto this party in Poland shouldn't have happened? Lead by example.. Whatever happened to that?

If they are wrong on this then what else are they wrong on?

I do, however find it bizarre that the world over all these stupid, misguided, people have found themselves in positions of influence, whilst the doubters tap away fron their front rooms, relying only on channels like this to have any hearing.

You mean like Al Gore?

Bless him.. I wonder what his carbon footprint has been over the last 10 years while he's been making his millions? Another one who leads by example.. He's relying on channels too.. BBC, ITV, ABC and with all his money he made a nice money earner on the back of something that could turn out to be fraudulent.

I say all this in jest..

I'll get me coat..

[osmposm]

Well, thanks for that, um, nice, balanced view of things, prof. Glad to see our moderating team doesn't bother to restrain itself in these matters: it's so unnecessary in my view. And I've never understood why we have to have referees and umpires from unconnected countries in international sports fixtures either.

[osmposm]

Sorry, I forgot to write "I say all this in jest.."

Ossie

[jethro]

Here is what I personally believe is THE driving factor behind much of the drive for carbon free, sustainable energy. Would we have so much panic over climate change, would the subject even be discussed outside the walls of scientific institutions, without this problem? We may have similar discussions to those in the 20's & 30's about how mild winters have been recently but I doubt very much that we'd see the multi-billion dollar research grants that we currently see, let alone the "end of the world, we're all doomed" predictions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/de...peak-energy-iea

Monbiot is not known for his sceptic views, he's an ardent environmentalist.

[PeteG]

(if you put something that's at 100C in an oven that's at 200C then it'll take longer to change noticeably than an object put in at 0C).

No, it will take exactly the same time.

[pottyprof]

Well, thanks for that, um, nice, balanced view of things, prof. Glad to see our moderating team doesn't bother to restrain itself in these matters: it's so unnecessary in my view. And I've never understood why we have to have referees and umpires from unconnected countries in international sports fixtures either.

You are very welcome..

And I totally agree..

And youre forgiven..

[Iceberg]

Morning CB.

Oh, because comments like this one - "So why a virtually dead sun but temps still way above normal.... " (post #20 of yours above) suggests that you expect an instantaneous (or virtually instantaneous) effect.

Here's an idea that springs to mind, based on the argument you are giving - perhaps the heat that was in the oceans, in the absence of external forcing, is being released into the atmosphere, thereby keeping the atmosphere warm and cooling the oceans.

I'm not saying that I subscribe to this idea necessarily (I haven't thought it through thoroughly), but it seems a semi-plausible explanation at such short notice! Also bear in mind that the oceans aren't static, and some heat is bound to have been taken to lower depths.

I don't know why you have to resort to the derisive term "fudge factor" - does everything in the climate system react at the same time, and in the same timespan? Can there not be various lags of differing lengths depending upon which aspect of the system is causing the lag to occur?

And you still haven't explained why you feel that a current solar minimum should cause us to have immediate record-breaking cold spells...

CB

I except that there is some lag, but the lag will be the minority of the warming not the majority, therefore it would be reasonable to expect that during the trough in solar activity you get average global temps at best.

I use the term fudge factor not to be derisive but it can't be called a correction factor unless you know why it's been corrected. As I've said many times there is no real explanation of the mechanism for such long delays I agree and can see that several ocean currents at the surface can and do drive the heat in a rough 2 year or so process so that some of the heat can be trapped and slowly dispersed.

As to record breaking cold spells again this is not something I've said. I have said that during periods of solar minimum IF the solar cycle were a major controlling factor I would expect temperatures to be quite a bit lower than they are now. and much nearer average.

I produced a graph in the research area where there is a very good short/medium term correlation between oceans temps and global surface temps, the lag here is only ever aroud 3-6 months max. This would indicate a very good correlation between ocean cooling and warming and surface air cooling and warming. The solar activity has been below average for a few years now and very low for the last 18 months ? I think anyway.

Second from last yes some of the heat will go down to depth but this really is a tiny percentage.

To Finish with an example, the figures arn't perfect but hopefully it helps to give an idea.

The solar cycle provides a difference in global temps of +0.3 on average at peak and -0.3 on average at trough. During a period of warming due to the solar cycle the trough by only go down to -0.2 due to a increase in solar activity during the minimum. If this continued for a long time maybe 50 years you could see significant build up of heat in the system which then gets slowly released even during the next few solar mins moderating them further ? I believe this is the general idea being put forth.

If we say that 10% of the heat is stored in a cupboard(ocean) for future use the rest escapes back out again then of the 0.1C positive balance we have a build up of 0.01C over a 10 year cycle. If we carry this on for 50 years we get the 0.05C which is far below the warming we've seen. The capacity for the heat storage would have to be 50% to enable a trend build up of 0.25C which is the bare minimum we seem to be witnessing.

Secondly we see an immediate transfer of heat from ocean to air in all circumstances such as our own Gulf Steam.

Even if there were lags in the system that released of a 100 year period. I could understand but not really agree they they will help moderate solar minimums but don't see then completely over riding the solar minimums.

As I say I plotted temp against ENSO(something I know other people have done) and the plot fits pretty well without another major cycle coming into play but does show a steady warming trend which doesnt fit the solar cycle.

[Admiral_Bobski]

(if you put something that's at 100C in an oven that's at 200C then it'll take longer to change noticeably than an object put in at 0C).

No, it will take exactly the same time.

Hi Pete!

Note that I said "it'll take longer to change noticeably"... The difference between 0C and 10C is more obvious than the difference between 100C and 110C.

And a good morning to you too, Iceberg!

I except that there is some lag, but the lag will be the minority of the warming not the majority, therefore it would be reasonable to expect that during the trough in solar activity you get average global temps at best.

Why would the lag be the minority of the warming? Is this based on the preconceived notion that solar effects are minor by comparison with the effects of CO2 (and other GHGs)?

I use the term fudge factor not to be derisive but it can't be called a correction factor unless you know why it's been corrected. As I've said many times there is no real explanation of the mechanism for such long delays I agree and can see that several ocean currents at the surface can and do drive the heat in a rough 2 year or so process so that some of the heat can be trapped and slowly dispersed.

If there is a pattern match between the solar cycles and the temperature cycles, but for the pattern to fit the there must be a correction to accommodate an apparent time lag, then it can be called a correction factor regardless of an identifiable mechanism (especially if we are hypothesising as opposed to theorising). The pattern match may not be immediately identifiable - the Earth tries to stabilise itself, thermally speaking (thermal inertia, I think it's called), and so smoothes out the peaks and troughs of solar activity. Identifying the solar signal is a tad more complicated than just superimposing a couple of graphs (which, I'll grant you, the Great Global Warming Swindle tried to do), since there are other factors involved (like your ENSO match...but what drives ENSO...?)

As to record breaking cold spells again this is not something I've said. I have said that during periods of solar minimum IF the solar cycle were a major controlling factor I would expect temperatures to be quite a bit lower than they are now. and much nearer average.

I apologise for that comment - I was exaggerating your claim (unfairly, perhaps) to make a point. Why would you expect temperatures to be "quite a bit lower" than they are now? And how much is "quite a bit"? Presumably your expectations are once again driven by the preconceived idea that solar effects are minimal, and that the lag is negligible (2 years or less).

I produced a graph in the research area where there is a very good short/medium term correlation between oceans temps and global surface temps, the lag here is only ever aroud 3-6 months max. This would indicate a very good correlation between ocean cooling and warming and surface air cooling and warming. The solar activity has been below average for a few years now and very low for the last 18 months ? I think anyway.

I shall have to have a look at that (shamefully I don't check out the research area very often...!). However, if we look at this graphic:

we can see that the rough "average" peak, historically, is in the 75-100 sunspot range. The last five cycles have roughly averaged at 150-spot peaks. If we take a look at this graph:

we can see that we passed through the 75-100 sunspot range (the rough average) back in 2003. So even if we take a modest time lag of 2-5 years then we can see that solar activity at the time was roughly average. Further, if we are willing to take into account the potential (though unproven) build-up of energy in the Earth system due to a 50-year period of unusually active cycles then we are left with currently stalling Earth temperatures (due to the last few years of approaching minimum) that are still above average but at least not increasing.

Second from last yes some of the heat will go down to depth but this really is a tiny percentage.

Yes, it is a small amount, but it is just an example of the sort of thing that heat gets up to when one isn't looking!

To Finish with an example, the figures arn't perfect but hopefully it helps to give an idea.

The solar cycle provides a difference in global temps of +0.3 on average at peak and -0.3 on average at trough. During a period of warming due to the solar cycle the trough by only go down to -0.2 due to a increase in solar activity during the minimum. If this continued for a long time maybe 50 years you could see significant build up of heat in the system which then gets slowly released even during the next few solar mins moderating them further ? I believe this is the general idea being put forth.

Yes, that's pretty much where I'm coming from, though I'm also suggesting that the extra energy from recent (exceptionally high) solar maxima can be retained from cycle to cycle even if solar minima were to drop to the average baseline (or, to put it another way, the idea isn't based solely on the idea that overactive solar minima "keep the kettle simmering", so to speak, although that would certainly help!).

If we say that 10% of the heat is stored in a cupboard(ocean) for future use the rest escapes back out again then of the 0.1C positive balance we have a build up of 0.01C over a 10 year cycle. If we carry this on for 50 years we get the 0.05C which is far below the warming we've seen. The capacity for the heat storage would have to be 50% to enable a trend build up of 0.25C which is the bare minimum we seem to be witnessing.

I shall take your word for that for now - I haven't looked at specific figures yet, so I shall have to get back to you on that one. (Probably after Christmas - it can only get more hectic over the next nine days!! :o )

Secondly we see an immediate transfer of heat from ocean to air in all circumstances such as our own Gulf Steam.

Even if there were lags in the system that released of a 100 year period. I could understand but not really agree they they will help moderate solar minimums but don't see then completely over riding the solar minimums.

For now all I shall say is "Thermal Inertia" (rather cryptically!) and, again, get back to you...

As I say I plotted temp against ENSO(something I know other people have done) and the plot fits pretty well without another major cycle coming into play but does show a steady warming trend which doesnt fit the solar cycle.

Your ENSO graph was extremely interesting, as I recall, and I'll definitely be checking back on that. I am especially interested to see where the temperature diverges from ENSO and where the high solar activity kicks in. Since ocean and air currents are primarily driven by solar effects (heat) and lunar effects (gravity) then one has to wonder how all of these factors combine, and whether their (correct) combination can explain recent temperature trends.

Whoo! There's quite a bit of investigating to be done here. I think I'll have a lie down in a darkened room before I begin!

CB

[Iceberg]

Cheers to you to CB, Currently in a phone meeting atm So will get back later !. Like you Christmas is getting quite hectic.

[osmposm]

...and my specific thanks to you, too, Ice, as well as Cap'n Bob: this is a fascinating debate.

Ossie

[Thundery wintry showers]

Who are the flat earthers?

Put simply, the flat earthers are those who hold a view and have little or nothing to back it up other than "it's true because it's true", and are unreceptive to the suggestions and views of others. This applies regardless of their pro or anti AGW stances, though in recent months I've tended to see a lot more of this on the "anti" side.

Here's a point in a post above that I think needs addressing:

As to record breaking cold spells again this is not something I've said. I have said that during periods of solar minimum IF the solar cycle were a major controlling factor I would expect temperatures to be quite a bit lower than they are now. and much nearer average.

I apologise for that comment - I was exaggerating your claim (unfairly, perhaps) to make a point. Why would you expect temperatures to be "quite a bit lower" than they are now? And how much is "quite a bit"? Presumably your expectations are once again driven by the preconceived idea that solar effects are minimal, and that the lag is negligible (2 years or less).

The reason is that if solar effects were large, we would surely expect there to be a large cooling as a result of solar activity changes. In reality, we haven't seen any significant cooling (maybe 0.1-0.2C at the very most) and much of this can be explained by ENSO anyway, so the suggestion is that either recent solar activity has had a minimal effect, or something else must be offsetting the large effect that it has had.

[millennia]

Hello again everybody. Thought I'd drop by and check out how the "discussion" is going, especially as I don't have to wade through 80+ pages of comments now there is a new discussion thread!

Seems as though there has been a bit of an advance from the last time I looked, which had just spiralled into a circular "yes it is", "no it isn't" batting back and forth, but there still seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge the increasing dissention of scientists with regard to the dogmatic presentation of CO2 as an AGW driver, as per the latest Minority Report (good film that ) on the subject http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...5d-6e2d71db52d9.

What interests me is the increasing use of acronyms like ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc. being batted back and forth by both sides and yet go back a few years and these were notably absent from many discussions. Why? Because this is very new in terms of human scientific knowledge and yet as discoveries continue to be made on what drives Earth's climate everybody seems dead sure we know enough to take trillion dollar decisions on the future of humanity. We STILL know more about the Moon than we do about the deep oceans and the reason why these fantastic climate models can only find CO2 as a cause of the last 30 years of warming is because we don't know everything that can drive the climate, this is because the science is too young to have directly measured or even discovered all the factors. We are still arguing over whether the MWP existed, and have no direct measurements of that time - only proxies of very dubious value - so to make such certain predictions using such a young science is so very dangerous.

An observation from history - the absolute certainty that the Sun revolved around the Earth took a long time to be defeated by the likes of Copernicus and subsequently Galileo, and yet hundreds if not thousands of years before these people the heliocentric view of the solar system had already been calculated. We as a species have a history of learning and forgetting because of the inconsistency of recording information, and only recently have we had the means to quickly disseminate and store information around the world. In many cases this is a first experience for science and it has a lot of learning and even relearning to do, and all the time must fight the vested interests of others not at all interested in science from all viewpoints.

I honestly believe this is a subject that will never be settled, but as the years go by the climate will swing one way, then the other, and eventually modern science will observe and record directly the extremes of variation our forefathers had discovered and forgotten again. Then, perhaps, we will be in a position to make decisions in advance.

Today we are not ready.