General Climate Change Discussion

[Devonian]

It depends upon whether you believe that either small increases in atmospheric CO₂ above an arbitrary level, say, 280ppm, are the direct cause of an increase in the earth's temperature, or that a change in earths temperature causes the background CO₂ levels to vary.

Few things are more certain that that the present change in CO2 conc is man made. There are several independent lines of evidence that show this. It's as near as damn it a fact.

With carbon dioxide being rather soluble in water, and reactive, dissociating water to produce carbonic acid (HOCOO^-H⁺), under any single standard set of conditions of temperature, concentration of gaseous CO₂ and pressure, it would be possible to obtain an equilibrium or balance between the gas and the aqueous phase. Over the range of conditions found on our planet, and their variations over time rule out any possibility of any natural equilibrium.

Background CO₂ levels have varied without "our efforts" in the past (with coincident temperature changes) - there is no equilibrium, as long as carbon is the common currency of the biosphere, these "carbon-based lifeforms" take what they can to survive, in whichever assimilable form that suits their biochemistry and ecology.

C'mon, we've never burnt giga tonnes of fossil fuel a year except for the present century or so.

Believe me, there's no balance, just variation between physical limits, moderated by a changing, evolving biosphere. It would be tautologous to say that the biosphere keeps the atmosphere just so in order to survive, unless of course, "intelligent design" is your thing. (It would still be tautologous, but it would be possible to be absolutely serious when saying it!)

It's not intelligent design (though it is a neat attempt to label me as religious). There is a Carbon Cycle, like it or not it's been in, rough, balance for hundreds of thousands of years - until we started to burn fossil fuels, chop rainforests and the rest in a big way

[osmposm]

I think your analogy is a bit misplaced, as I understand it these are the main green house gas offenders - water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and CFCs. Of which I hasten to add, water vapour accounts for up to 70%.

But I wasn't saying anything about CO2 being more or less important than anything else. I was merely pointing out (as I said in the post) that although an extra 80 ppm of something seems a tiny amount, it can have a dramatic effect.

You were inviting us to believe in your couple-of-tissues-in-ten-thousand-boxes comparison that such minute amounts of extra gas must be insignificant - it's just common sense, isn't it? By showing that in the case of Hydrogen Cyanide it is on the contrary very significant indeed, we must conclude that such obvious logic can sometimes be wrong.

[Chris Knight]

I have to make an apology. I used the word "Tautology", or derivatives thereof in a previous post. It was a senior moment. I meant, and should have written: "Teleology", or its relative derivatives in context.

Thank heavens! Nobody noticed.

[noggin]

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?f...0a-1d53dff2a6bc

Here is a transcript of a speech given on 1st October this year by Vaclav Claus, president of Czechoslovakia (who should know a thing or two about opression).

He considers the whole GW/AGW/global warming thing to be about ........

"......dirigism, political control and expansive and unstoppable government regulation of human behaviour....."

An exceptionally interesting read, whilst one is digesting one's modest Christmas feast.

I didn't know what "dirigism" was, so I looked it up. In case I am not the only numpty around here ( ) it means.....

oh, hang on a mo, it wasn't in my dictionary, so I'll post it as an edit in a minute.....

Found it, eventually!

It is actually "dirigisme" (with an "e") and is basically what he has said...."economic planning and control by the state".

There, I learn something new every day!

Merry Christmas one and all, I'm off to get myself a glass of plonk and some choccies.

[osmposm]

Well, jolly interesting, I'm sure, Noggin. But just how much does a politician know about the science of Climate Change? I hope more than you know about the politics and geography of Eastern Europe!! Czechoslovakia ceased to exist almost exactly 16 years ago, splitting back into two separate sovereign states, Slovakia & the Czech Republic, of which Vaclav Klaus (not Claus, even on Xmas Day!) is President. Klaus was largely responsible for the break up, which was done without a referendum of the people.

But in fact he doesn't. Klaus is a well-known, right wing, free marketeer. His background is economics, not science, and his whole view on AGW derives from his views on free market economics, which (in his view) alone has the capability to liberate the developing world, AND solve all problems - environmental, social, or anything else - that it meets along the way. Understandably he is one of the darlings of the American Right. He is also renowned for his personal political ambition. He did little in politics until he sensed which way the wind was blowing in 1989 (up to that point he had been happy to work in senior positions at the State Bank under the communists). He then carefully orchestrated his own rise to personal power, often in a manner that angered and upset Vaclav Havel and the others who had fought so long and hard to liberate Czechoslavakia. His extreme economic libertarianism has often been criticised as being unconcerned with the rule of law, and he is widely credited as being largely responsible for the rise of corruption and Russian-style 'gangster capitalism' (Havel's phrase, not mine). There is a great deal more besides - Wikipedia is a good start. Not the most plausible of politicians, perhaps.

His Global Warming position is not new, and his view is as absolute, deaf and unyielding as any of those held by those he criticizes. He was the sole head of state to publicly endorse "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - which you may possibly see as a commendation, but I'm afraid I don't.

Klaus on the Environment: "I really do see Environmentalism as a threat to our freedom and prosperity."

HAPPY CHRISTMAS!!

Edited December 25, 2008 by osmposm

[pottyprof]

Well, jolly interesting, I'm sure, Noggin. But just how much does a politician know about the science of Climate Change?

Well most poiticians seem to know enough to realise that a scam created Enron would make plenty of money..

Hope everyone had a super Christmas..

[pottyprof]

Just been having a rummage through some old links..

Something that tends to be forgotten or rubbished as coincidence is the fact that mars is also warming.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=...5c7f723&k=0

January 26, 2007

Climate change is a much, much bigger issue than the public, politicians, and even the most alarmed environmentalists realize. Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries.

"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency's Mars Odyssey completed its first Martian year of data collection. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated." With each passing year more and more evidence arises of the dramatic changes occurring on the only planet on the solar system, apart from Earth, to give up its climate secrets.

NASA's findings in space come as no surprise to Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo -- at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment -- is one of the world's best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.

"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.

"It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.

Because of the scientific significance of this period of global cooling that we're about to enter, the Russian and Ukrainian space agencies, under Dr. Abdussamatov's leadership, have launched a joint project to determine the time and extent of the global cooling at mid-century. The project, dubbed Astrometry and given priority space-experiment status on the Russian portion of the International Space Station, will marshal the resources of spacecraft manufacturer Energia, several Russian research and production centers, and the main observatory of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences. By late next year, scientific equipment will have been installed in a space-station module and by early 2009, Dr. Abdussamatov's space team will be conducting a regular survey of the sun.

With the data, the project will help mankind cope with a century of falling temperatures, during which we will enter a mini ice age.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now. It does not have to come into force until at least 100 years from no w," Dr. Abdussamatov concluded. "A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse- gas emissions."

I like his CV..

CV OF A DENIER:

Habibullo Abdussamatov, born in Samarkand in Uzbekistan in 1940, graduated from Samarkand University in 1962 as a physicist and a mathematician. He earned his doctorate at Pulkovo Observatory and the University of Leningrad.

He is the head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academies of Sciences' Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometry project, a long-term joint scientific research project of the Russian and Ukranian space agencies.

[noggin]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...49-EE9098538277

From earlier this year.......reports of how difficult it is for the anti-AGWers to get their papers published.

It is possible, I suppose ( ) that some people might be irritated by my small efforts to dispel the AGW stuff, or maybe my posts and links are not even worthy of getting irritated about ( ). However, as we are about to enter a new year, my resolve is strengthened and I shall continue on my crusade!

May I be the first to wish everybody a "Happy New Year".

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...e4-89c4f49995d2

More scientists jump onto the anti-bandwagon....it's getting crowded.

I feel a song coming on, altogether now......"three wheels on my wagon......"

I'd better look out for any arrows coming my way!

[Android]

Just been having a rummage through some old links..

Something that tends to be forgotten or rubbished as coincidence is the fact that mars is also warming.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=...5c7f723&k=0

I like his CV..

There's a very good explaination for warming on mars, including the possibility that it isn't even occuring.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov has just ruled out his credibility on this issue. He claimed Mars warming must be due to solar irradiance as if he wasn't even aware of these other possibilities. Besides solar irradiance hasn't increased enough to explain that amount of warming on Mars, let alone on Earth. This is not an easy mistake for someone like Abdussamatov to make. You have to wonder how he made it so publically..

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...49-EE9098538277

From earlier this year.......reports of how difficult it is for the anti-AGWers to get their papers published.

It is possible, I suppose ( ) that some people might be irritated by my small efforts to dispel the AGW stuff, or maybe my posts and links are not even worthy of getting irritated about ( ). However, as we are about to enter a new year, my resolve is strengthened and I shall continue on my crusade!

May I be the first to wish everybody a "Happy New Year".

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...e4-89c4f49995d2

More scientists jump onto the anti-bandwagon....it's getting crowded.

I feel a song coming on, altogether now......"three wheels on my wagon......"

I'd better look out for any arrows coming my way!

But are they scientists researching in the field of climate? Or are they people with degrees who have no formal or background training in the subject of climate and who have got all their info on the subject from Michael Crichton's State of Fear or the Internet? For example there are a large number of TV Meteorologists on the senate list - what do TV Meteorologists have to know about climate drivers, the greenhouse effect, the carbon cycle in order to do their job? What insight can they have? Yet I bet they are asked about global warming frequently by the public, so some of them will go off and research global warming. I visited one of the blogs of a meteorologist in the list and they they confessed they are not an expert on the issue and they got their info from junkscience.com

if the names on the list are just forwarding stuff from sites like that then are they really scientists in the sense that they are somehow more authorative than a man on the street who also gets his info from junkscience.com?

Compare it with the IPCC author list which contains people with strong backgrounds in climate research.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Android

[pottyprof]

Besides solar irradiance hasn't increased enough to explain that amount of warming on Mars, let alone on Earth.

Maybe perhaps.. But then again we dont know what normal average levels are.. We do know that the level increased in recent history but is this a normal average or an increased average? We are now seeing levels dropping.. But is this a return to normal levels or are we seeing a reduction to lower levels?

Chicken or egg springs to mind..

Then again I just spotted this in the solar activity thread.... Thanks to blackdown for posting this..

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FIRST_SUNS...ONTH_ICECAP.pdf

Its a very interesting read..

[Admiral_Bobski]

Besides solar irradiance hasn't increased enough to explain that amount of warming on Mars, let alone on Earth.

Hasn't anyone read the Leaky Integrator thread?!

CB

[noggin]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...-disproved.html

Nice to see some more "disbelief" in the media. He makes a very interesting point re the world economy.........we can no longer afford to indulge such "fluff" as man-made global warming. However, as I and many, many others (of whatever climatic hue :wacko: ) have said.......the need for alternative, clean and renewable fuel is vital. Let's put whatever spare dosh there is into that.

[rob48]

The Global Warmers' foundations are crumbling further.

The whole argument appears to have been built on nothing more substantial than opinion:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4742%20refers

Time for some more character assassination then.

[laserguy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...-disproved.html

This must be the sixth time I've said it,but here goes again: "2008 - the year AGW leaves the building". Nice to know that the most feverish purveyors of the AGW hoax/scam/fraud/whatever,are finally beginning to catch up.

rob48,all the warmer's have to fall back on,these days is said character assasination of whoever is behind the latest ripping apart of their bogus theories,while Big Al is treated as some type of God and,well,the less said about Hansen the better. I've more or less stopped posting on here because of the simple fact that the warmers really are a lost cause - utterly pointless and intractable in their views regardless of whatever is laid out before them. Now I just sit back and watch the events I was aware of a couple of years ago unfold before our eyes. Enjoy. Meanwhile,the warmers still bang their broken drum about rising temps blah blah while the world visibly freezes. Y'know,they could stand in front of a raging inferno of a house and quite seriously insist that it wasn't on fire.

I haven't just moved to a house with with over-the-top insulation and the latest in heating tech without reason,y'know!

[Solar Cycles]

This must be the sixth time I've said it,but here goes again: "2008 - the year AGW leaves the building". Nice to know that the most feverish purveyors of the AGW hoax/scam/fraud/whatever,are finally beginning to catch up.

rob48,all the warmer's have to fall back on,these days is said character assasination of whoever is behind the latest ripping apart of their bogus theories,while Big Al is treated as some type of God and,well,the less said about Hansen the better. I've more or less stopped posting on here because of the simple fact that the warmers really are a lost cause - utterly pointless and intractable in their views regardless of whatever is laid out before them. Now I just sit back and watch the events I was aware of a couple of years ago unfold before our eyes. Enjoy. Meanwhile,the warmers still bang their broken drum about rising temps blah blah while the world visibly freezes. Y'know,they could stand in front of a raging inferno of a house and quite seriously insist that it wasn't on fire.

I haven't just moved to a house with with over-the-top insulation and the latest in heating tech without reason,y'know!

I know what you mean laserguy. I find it easier just to let the warmist rabbit on, with their scaremongering fables. For as far as I'm concerned, agw is a dead duck in the water. The world as got far bigger problems to worry about, other than an idea without substance!

[Devonian]

This must be the sixth time I've said it,but here goes again: "2008 - the year AGW leaves the building". Nice to know that the most feverish purveyors of the AGW hoax/scam/fraud/whatever,are finally beginning to catch up.

You say that and then you've the brass neck to say

rob48,all the warmer's have to fall back on,these days is said character assasination of whoever is behind the latest ripping apart of their bogus theories,while Big Al is treated as some type of God and,well,the less said about Hansen the better.

Amazing...

I've more or less stopped posting on here because of the simple fact that the warmers really are a lost cause - utterly pointless and intractable in their views regardless of whatever is laid out before them. Now I just sit back and watch the events I was aware of a couple of years ago unfold before our eyes. Enjoy. Meanwhile,the warmers still bang their broken drum about rising temps blah blah while the world visibly freezes. Y'know,they could stand in front of a raging inferno of a house and quite seriously insist that it wasn't on fire.

I haven't just moved to a house with with over-the-top insulation and the latest in heating tech without reason,y'know!

Look, no one denies today is cold, or that yesterday was, or that it's snowed somewhere, anywhere you care to name indeed. Otoh, to adopt you stance I also have to deny that 2009 was one of the top ten or so warm years (that's warm years) since 1880. Sorry, i wont do that because, well, I'd have to deny reality and I wont.

[Methuselah]

I know what you mean laserguy. I find it easier just to let the warmist rabbit on, with their scaremongering fables. For as far as I'm concerned, agw is a dead duck in the water. The world as got far bigger problems to worry about, other than an idea without substance!

Is it that you people don't believe that the world is warming, or that it's not man's doing?? Your collective logic (or lack thereof) is often as baffling as it is inconsistent! <_<

Edited December 31, 2008 by Pete Tattum

[Thundery wintry showers]

I also think it's highly hypocritical to say that AGW is a myth because we can't be sure of whether it's happening or not... and then turn around and say that it definitely isn't happening.

My assessment of the viability of a view is largely determined by how much reasoning there is to back it up, and how logical/valid the reasoning is. There are some extremists out there with regards the AGW theory, but fundamentally the scientific reasoning behind it is sound, the only real problem with it is the limitations of today's climate models (if the models are flawed, any conclusions derived from them are likely to be flawed).

In contrast the "anti" case offered in these threads contains a link to extremist articles with "free markets are the solution to everything" agendas and dismissal of the AGW theory with Ad Hominem attacks and circular reasoning (I know that AGW is a myth, therefore it must be a myth).

There is a lot of support for the "anti" case in this thread, but degree of support doesn't convince me in itself especially when the prevailing attitude for dealing with problems is to bury one's head in the sand and say "that's life". If I saw 120,000 people claiming "2+2=4782969" it wouldn't convince me any more than if it was 2 people.

[noggin]

Is it that you people don't believe that the world is warming, or that it's not man's doing??

Assuming that I am one of "you people" (and I take no offence, as I don't think any was intended <_< ), I would like to clarify my take on the issue:

Yes, we have warmed during, roughly, the 80s and 90s, but the past few years have seen the start of a cooldown. These cycles have always occurred. Nothing stays the same. As far as climate is concerned, I believe it's all about varying and intertwining cycles, of a complexity that is way beyond our understanding......but I firmly believe that it is "natural". We can try to pin it down and blame it on mankind, based on the little knowledge that we have......a sort of "making it fit" kind of thing, but how much do we not know? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as someone once said.

Which is not to say we shouldn't clean up our act.

Happy New Year to everybody.

[noggin]

dismissal of the AGW theory with Ad Hominem attacks

Well, this takes my breath away, somewhat. Whilst I don't indulge in these tactics myself, preferring to remain courteous at all times, I have to say that the Ad Hominem attacks are perpetrated by both camps.

I would like to wish everybody a Happy New Year. <_<

[Gray-Wolf]

It worries me greatly to read the 'enthusiasm' with which the contrarians trumpet the normal/natural cycles of the planet as some kind of 'defeat' of our AGW issues. Sadly the majority of the first world (and therefore the wherewithal to make a difference) is situated in the very areas that these 'natural cycles' are impacting.

My worry is that the 'media' ,and not the science, has a stronger impact on the common man and that this may lead to a stagnation of will to tackle the issue which stands to condemn millions.

The contrarians need to look over the last times we entered such a 'cycle' and compare past impacts with the version we are being treated to this winter to have a meaningful comparison of their "been here ,done that" stance on climate.

There is a growing consensus ,amongst experts in the field, that we are now beyond the point where positive feedbacks will start to take over mans role in the present 'warming' (Arctic amplification, Co2 sink failures, climate shift) even if man dramatically alters his ways.........another 5 years of B.A.U., excused by global financial instability and a northern 'cold period', will doom us all.

Mankind needs it's mavericks, they make us go over the figures (to make sure we have things right) and force us to bring forward proofs that the majority cannot deny. As we all know 'mavericks' can also lead us into blind alleys with no chance of escape.

[Methuselah]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as someone once said.

That is very true Nog. And a very happy New Year to you! <_<

The problem with that statement (Was it Cavendish?), is that it is always said as though it only applies to one side of an argument...I will argue that it applies equally to both?? IMO though, I wouldn't trust a website, thinktank or political organization run by free-market ultra-capitalists to tell me the thruth about anything. Even economics!

[noggin]

That is very true Nog. And a very happy New Year to you! <_<

The problem with that statement (Was it Cavendish?), is that it is always said as though it only applies to one side of an argument...I will argue that it applies equally to both?? IMO though, I wouldn't trust a website, thinktank or political organization run by free-market ultra-capitalists to tell me the thruth about anything. Even economics!

Now here's a thing, Pete.....

I have just checked in my Concise Oxford Dictionary of Quotations to find out where the statement originated, but couldn't actually pin the precise thing down. However, T H Huxley (1825-1995) comes up with the following...

"If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has so much as to be out of danger." Cautionary for all of us, I feel!

But, bringing a smile to my face was this......

"I am too much of a sceptic to deny the possibility of anything." I think this may be where I am heading. I try to keep an open mind, although I am on the "natural" side of the fence at present.

Only time will tell, eh?

[Methuselah]

Now here's a thing, Pete.....

I have just checked in my Concise Oxford Dictionary of Quotations to find out where the statement originated, but couldn't actually pin the precise thing down. However, T H Huxley (1825-1995) comes up with the following...

"If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has so much as to be out of danger." Cautionary for all of us, I feel!

But, bringing a smile to my face was this......

"I am too much of a sceptic to deny the possibility of anything." I think this may be where I am heading. I try to keep an open mind, although I am on the "natural" side of the fence at present.

Only time will tell, eh?

<_<

Good work, mate...And true enough...

[noggin]

It worries me greatly to read the 'enthusiasm' with which the contrarians trumpet the normal/natural cycles of the planet as some kind of 'defeat' of our AGW issues.

I think that maybe you are reading into things, things which aren't there, IYKWIM.

Cheer up, G-W....people aren't Philistines. Most of the people who I know don't believe in the worst of the AGW hype, but they do what they can in their own way and in their little bit of the world, to make it a cleaner and better place in which to live.

All is not lost!