What Is Causing The Warming ?

[laserguy]

but this is getting more and more exciting by the day until another warming story hits the headlines tomorrow then my bubble is burst lol.

Didn't have to wait long,BB!

http://www.guardian....ters-conference

Does anyone know a word which means 'ridiculous',but a million times more so in order to describe this? I can smell,nay taste the desperation.

LG - watching,waiting,knowing.

[laserguy]

Didn't have to wait long,BB!

http://www.guardian....ters-conference

Does anyone know a word which means 'ridiculous',but a million times more so in order to describe this? I can smell,nay taste the desperation.

LG - watching,waiting,knowing.

The other side of the MSM,showing that not all of them have gone quite insane

http://www.telegraph...pery-stuff.html

There'll be the usual predictable attacks on the author but hey... you know he's right.

[Devonian]

Didn't have to wait long,BB!

http://www.guardian....ters-conference

Does anyone know a word which means 'ridiculous',but a million times more so in order to describe this? I can smell,nay taste the desperation.

LG - watching,waiting,knowing.

If (that's IF) AGW is as predicted then I think by centuries end (by which time, sadly, most of us will not be observing things to find out) I think some of these events might well happen. Now, I suppose it could be argued that newspapers should not report such Climate Forcing of Geological Hazards conference (that such news should be censored) but I'm not someone who would go that way - Christopher Booker is free to write his strange opinions and I support that freedom, The Observer to report the facts about a meeting. DO I think Mr Booker 'a million times' ridiculous? Not quite that much - that's a lot of ridiculous...

So, The Observer reported on this conference - how shocking and terrible of them.

[Solar Cycles]

Didn't have to wait long,BB!

http://www.guardian....ters-conference

Does anyone know a word which means 'ridiculous',but a million times more so in order to describe this? I can smell,nay taste the desperation.

LG - watching,waiting,knowing.

That as to be the most ridiculous story I've ever read! You couldn't make it up could you, oh hang on a minute they just have!!

Edited September 8, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Devonian]

That as to be the most ridiculous story I've ever read! You couldn't make it up could you, oh hang on a minute they just have!!

They didn't make it up - that's tantamount to calling them liars . Aren't you better than that?

[MR EXTREMES]

Didn't have to wait long,BB!

http://www.guardian....ters-conference

Does anyone know a word which means 'ridiculous',but a million times more so in order to describe this? I can smell,nay taste the desperation.

LG - watching,waiting,knowing.

i just cant stop laughing that has got to be the biggest load of rubbish ive ever read thats worse than my posts lol.

[Solar Cycles]

They didn't make it up - that's tantamount to calling them liars . Aren't you better than that?

I'm sorry but such stories are a joke ( even though there is nothing funny about misleading the public ). It seems lately that you have become defender of all things AGW, no matter how absurd the story! If a "right wing blog" came out and stated how we will all freeze to death in the next 10 years, unless we changed our ways. Would you sit up and take notice, or come charging on your white horse and attack it as right wing nonsense, who are in the pockets of the oil barons!!!!!!!!

Edited September 8, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Devonian]

i just cant stop laughing that has got to be the biggest load of rubbish ive ever read thats worse than my posts lol.

Oh, so you've got a Tardis?

I'm sorry but such stories are a joke ( even though there is nothing funny about misleading the public ). It seems lately that you have become defender of all things AGW, no matter how absurd the story! If a "right wing blog" came out and stated how we will all freeze to death in the next 10 years, unless we changed our ways. Would you sit up and take notice, or come charging on your white horse and attack it as right wing nonsense, who are in the pockets of the oil barons!!!!!!!!

I don't call people lairs...

[MR EXTREMES]

They didn't make it up - that's tantamount to calling them liars . Aren't you better than that?

no there not liars they just increase the extremes to suit there purposes.

it just goes to show,

chief of un standing on arctic ice,

not even knowing its up on 2007 not a huge increase but enough.

so it goes to show lets plough the british public taxes into this rubbish and forget other studies just to support the runnerway warming.

earthquakes volcanic ect ect omg ive herd it all but then theres plenty that would listen to this crap.

i think its fair to report on climate warming cooling but in a sensible way scaremoggering dont do it for me but it does for some.

warming stories have increased far more recently than cooling stories thats because cooling stories tred on the toes of the warming camp.:unsure:

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

That as to be the most ridiculous story I've ever read! You couldn't make it up could you, oh hang on a minute they just have!!

Just a tad of an 'alarmist' slant it has to be said. If IAN came up with the 'hell freezes over' equivalent then one can imagine the response from said such proponents! lol!

Reading Landscheits paper again atm, it underlines to me how out of kilter the present day research has been in terms of assessing ALL feedbacks. His own predictions are panning out much closer to the mark than the IPCC over the short term it has to be said.

I think there will come a stage when the IPCC will be forced to re run their computer projections (rather than just prepare their usual updated report) as cases of more negative feedbacks arise where positive one's are expected in terms of man made forcings. Either that, or it will be shown that there are areas where no assumed relationship exists at all. The clouds part of the hypothesis, as one example, has already had holes punched in it in terms of negative feedback responses being found against expectations, and with the solar negative feedbacks increasingly strengthening beyond most predictions (apart from Landscheit for one) then things appear much less clear cut than they have been made out to be.

This type of slant as per the link will still persist - the type of predictions that would fit even the top most solutions for warming of the IPCC models.

But until the AGW hypothesis becomes more than a hypothesis and the extent of the assumed feedback relationships between CO2 and warmth is illustrated by some reality then the gap between assumed climate change control feedbacks and reality looks to me like ever growing in terms of AGW overestimation.

Interesting times we live in.

Edited September 8, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[MR EXTREMES]

Oh, so you've got a Tardis?

I don't call people lairs...

i dont need a tardis i read both sides of the story and come to my own conclusions,

and there are plenty on here including myself who are not dissputing mans influence on a small amount of warming.

but it was said sometime ago hurricaines would become more extreme due to warming but infact there the same as they where 100 years ago although warming has increased the number from what we have seen.

but like most on here it would be idiotic to think that only one extreme will be the total outcome of planet earth considering that other forcings play massive roles in our climate ie solar AMO pdo el nino la nina.

so please the story was over the top and its typical media hype that we have become used to in this day and age,

more so now because of the possible effect the solar cycle could have on our climate along with shifts in climate varialibility.:unsure::)

[noggin]

Didn't have to wait long,BB!

http://www.guardian....ters-conference

Does anyone know a word which means 'ridiculous',but a million times more so in order to describe this? I can smell,nay taste the desperation.

LG - watching,waiting,knowing.

Oh, Laserguy....I didn't realise you had posted this...sorry....I went and posted it in the general thread this morning! :unsure:

Time they changed the record.....it's all a bit passe now.

[Anti-Mild]

Didn't have to wait long,BB!

http://www.guardian....ters-conference

Does anyone know a word which means 'ridiculous',but a million times more so in order to describe this? I can smell,nay taste the desperation.

LG - watching,waiting,knowing.

That is a terrible article! Not only has the journalist taken the most alarmist aspect of potential GW I have yet to see, but has presented it in an incredibly biased way; note the use of 'will' instead of 'may'.

Absolute claptrap and I give it the "most flagrant waste of (virtual) ink award" for 2009!!

As I have said on other threads, I fell it is only a matter of time before a more balanced view of what lies in store for the climate becomes more widely recognised, although some organisations/publications will cling on to their propaganda for just a little bit longer than the rest!

[Methuselah]

Considering that the long-held view has been that cloud feedback is negative (at least, it was when I learned about feedbacks?) that is a very strange claim???

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3784

[jethro]

I think it's worth bearing in mind that a successor to the Kyoto protocol is due in 2012. To date, developing nations like China and India have largely refused to commit to cutting their emissions, their argument being us developed countries have caused the problem , we can sort it out.

Regardless of stance on AGW, it has to be obvious that meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions can only be achieved if these nations come on board too. I would expect a flurry of "drastic measures needed" articles in the run up to this and indeed the talks in Copenhagen due later this year.

Worst case scenarios will feature highly I'm sure, any pressure which can be brought to bear on China and India to comply, will be used IMO.

Does this make such extreme articles wrong? I don't think so, anything's possible in the future, but does it make it a likely scenario? Again, I don't think so. There's scant evidence to support all feedbacks being positive which they would need to be in order to support these "end of the world is nigh" articles.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I think it's worth bearing in mind that a successor to the Kyoto protocol is due in 2012. To date, developing nations like China and India have largely refused to commit to cutting their emissions, their argument being us developed countries have caused the problem , we can sort it out.

Regardless of stance on AGW, it has to be obvious that meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions can only be achieved if these nations come on board too. I would expect a flurry of "drastic measures needed" articles in the run up to this and indeed the talks in Copenhagen due later this year.

Worst case scenarios will feature highly I'm sure, any pressure which can be brought to bear on China and India to comply, will be used IMO.

Does this make such extreme articles wrong? I don't think so, anything's possible in the future, but does it make it a likely scenario? Again, I don't think so. There's scant evidence to support all feedbacks being positive which they would need to be in order to support these "end of the world is nigh" articles.

That indeed was one of the jist of my own post.

Regarding the comment above about clouds feedbacks. A positive feedback has been assumed as part of AGW hypothesis in terms of an escalating warmth amplification process caused by ever rising CO2 interacting with clouds.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Some very good posts here. I don't think the article in question is full of lies or claptrap, but it perpetuates the common failing of sensationalising and passing off a possible, but worst-case, scenario as something that "will" happen, when in reality it's probably not even particularly likely to happen.

I agree that we need global co-operation and not games of "you cut down your emissions, while I'll keep increasing mine".

Regarding feedbacks, it seems pretty clear that there's a lot that we don't know for definite regarding feedbacks. Many previously-assumed positive feedbacks might well turn out to be negative in reality, but as Pete Tattum's article shows, it is also possible for previously-assumed negative feedbacks to turn out to be positive. (I very much doubt that the article re. cloud feedbacks being positive is even close to being the last word, however!) As with many others, I consider overestimation of the effects of AGW to be more likely than underestimation (due to the way most feedbacks are assumed to be positive without fully conclusive evidence), but the latter isn't impossible.

[Solar Cycles]

i dont need a tardis i read both sides of the story and come to my own conclusions,

and there are plenty on here including myself who are not dissputing mans influence on a small amount of warming.

but it was said sometime ago hurricaines would become more extreme due to warming but infact there the same as they where 100 years ago although warming has increased the number from what we have seen.

but like most on here it would be idiotic to think that only one extreme will be the total outcome of planet earth considering that other forcings play massive roles in our climate ie solar AMO pdo el nino la nina.

so please the story was over the top and its typical media hype that we have become used to in this day and age,

more so now because of the possible effect the solar cycle could have on our climate along with shifts in climate varialibility.

Shhhh, don't mention the hurricaines!! The IPCC, are still trying to air brush that OTT statement out their report! On a more serious note, I think it's time now we adopted a more balanced view on reporting these things. Was only this summer that Dr Vicky Pope from the MetO, stated the very same. Only the blinkered and diehards with agendas, refuse too debate in a more honest fashion. That's on both sides by the way!!

Edited September 8, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[edveasey]

Hi Pete

That is hitting the nail on the head re my argument. If the approaching minima [we are only entering it] cancels out AGW then the assertion will stand that CO2 doesn't DRIVE the climate?

BFTP

Hi

Doesn't the fact that we are still recording above average global temperatures despite being in a solar minima suggest that other man made factors are infact driving the climate. I heard this monring on the skeptics guide podcast that new research suggests that the solar cycle has a larger effect on the global climate than previoulsy thought; if this is the case why aren't we recording colder years.

Am I missing something?

[VillagePlank]

Hi

Doesn't the fact that we are still recording above average global temperatures despite being in a solar minima suggest that other man made factors are infact driving the climate. I heard this monring on the skeptics guide podcast that new research suggests that the solar cycle has a larger effect on the global climate than previoulsy thought; if this is the case why aren't we recording colder years.

Am I missing something?

The leaky integrator postulate supposes that we will continue to post above average temperatures well into, and towards, the end of the next decade - assuming a very quiet sun for a very extended period of time. If the sun blazes back into action, then the only way is up (unless we get some significant volcanic activity, that is, or internal climate parameters change - and yes, one of those is CO2. Thought for the day ... if it is the sun, ala the leaky integrator, then there's not much we can do about it *apart* from modify man made internal climate forcings. Which means reducing CO2)

Edited September 8, 2009 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

Hi

Doesn't the fact that we are still recording above average global temperatures despite being in a solar minima suggest that other man made factors are infact driving the climate. I heard this monring on the skeptics guide podcast that new research suggests that the solar cycle has a larger effect on the global climate than previoulsy thought; if this is the case why aren't we recording colder years.

Am I missing something?

I think what you're missing is expecting instant results. It takes a long time for the Sun to heat the oceans, switching off the heat source doesn't instantly make the oceans cooler, they'll stay warm for a long time yet; then and only then would we expect to see any dramatic cooling.

It's kind of like storage heaters (only much, much bigger scale), they charge over night then dissipate their heat the next day. I know instinctively we think a quieter Sun is like it disappearing behind a cloud on a hot day, we feel it instantly, it should follow we'd feel a quiet Sun instantly but it really doesn't work like that.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1712261

[Methuselah]

Here's an interesting article from Woods Hole:

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455

[Iceberg]

I think what you're missing is expecting instant results. It takes a long time for the Sun to heat the oceans, switching off the heat source doesn't instantly make the oceans cooler, they'll stay warm for a long time yet; then and only then would we expect to see any dramatic cooling.

It's kind of like storage heaters (only much, much bigger scale), they charge over night then dissipate their heat the next day. I know instinctively we think a quieter Sun is like it disappearing behind a cloud on a hot day, we feel it instantly, it should follow we'd feel a quiet Sun instantly but it really doesn't work like that.

No but once the heat is turned back down the oceans won't continue to warm up, or hit new heights.

Nor do we get most of our heat from the oceans, otherwise temperatures would be highest in September when the oceans are warmest, also the temperature difference of the northern hemisphere is larger than the temperature difference of the oceans.

I have yet to see ANY evidence that the majority of the warming, cooling due to solar takes a long time to take effect, I have seen some limited evidence that a Minority of it might take upto 8-9 years to take full effect.

Re your second statement it does directly work like that, hence winter and summer, how a small minority of it might get stored in the oceans, however there is very little evidence that this is the case.

[jethro]

No but once the heat is turned back down the oceans won't continue to warm up, or hit new heights.

Nor do we get most of our heat from the oceans, otherwise temperatures would be highest in September when the oceans are warmest, also the temperature difference of the northern hemisphere is larger than the temperature difference of the oceans.

I have yet to see ANY evidence that the majority of the warming, cooling due to solar takes a long time to take effect, I have seen some limited evidence that a Minority of it might take upto 8-9 years to take full effect.

Re your second statement it does directly work like that, hence winter and summer, how a small minority of it might get stored in the oceans, however there is very little evidence that this is the case.

I am adding this in here not because it's anything to do with you Jethro, but because I might as well.

This thread was not created so that a skeptic could find,link to a cr*p newspaper article and then complain at the article we have other threads for that, IMO this adds nothing to the debate, we can all do it.

Yes there is alot of rubbish out there in internet land, lets keep most of it there shall we.....

You've mis-understood.

I'm not saying we get heat from oceans, heat comes from the Sun. The oceans moderate heat, (inadequate sentence, in a hurry). Warm SST's around our coastline have an impact upon winter weather, the longer the track over an ocean that a weather front has to make, the warmer it will be.

No, it doesn't work instantly. Yes there is disagreement upon the length of time for the lag but no science to say no lag at all.

Summer and winter is not a measure of TSI, it is as a consequence of planet movement.