General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

[Cycles]

1.He still seems to deny reliability or resolution if ice core readings for either the last 1000 years or from older cores, because he's not willing to do the research, and is fundamentally contradicting his own earlier statements:

My Reply...I researched this for my book, and provided references...go ahead and read the references. Older core samples have resolutions of mostly 600 years out to a couple thousand years. I read the links you gave me, and that is also what they showed.

2. Where is this cold Arctic air? In the Arctic that has experienced unusual warmth this winter? [a direct consequence of the negative AO]

My Reply...there are a lot of warm areas, and a lot of very cold areas around the northern hemisphere. If global warming was well entrenched we would not see 100 year cold and snow records falling this winter...oh well.

3. Tides:

Your chapter on tidal cycles includes a number of basic misconceptions:

relationship of 6-monthly perigee peaks to equinoxes/solstices - not true:

My Reply...sorry, they are, I plotted and analyzed raw data myself. And it is documented in references as well.

4. 4-year cycle - bizarrely unexplained, given that the cycle of high and low declinations of the Moon is ~18 years (oddly you simultaneously accept that)

My Reply...you need to bone up on cycles. High declination cycles occur every 4-years, first in the northern hemisphere and then 4 years later in the southern hemisphere.

5. "gravitational force of the moon causes the oceans to bulge along the lunar gravitational envelope, and a dome of water to form on both sides of the earth." Er, no it doesn't, a common misconception, that does not take into account the Coriolis Force.

My Reply...it does in the oceans, documented very well by oceanographers and "Woods"

6. Lastly, have a read of this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-record-snowfall-disprove-global-warming.html

Maybe you'll learn a little about temperature, humidity and precipitation, and why your claims about the record snowfalls in the US are so wrong.

My Reply....wow, many areas during the past 3 years have had 100-year snow records. Even snowed here in Florida this winter.

sss

[Thundery wintry showers]

GWO, I have to pick you up on points 2 and 6. A warmer globe does not prevent 100 year cold records being set if the temperature rise to date has only been relatively modest- which it has been. A warmer globe merely means that 100 year warm records will, on average, be more common than 100 year cold records. This winter, more cold records have been falling because we've seen a dominant pattern of cold anomalies over Eurasia and the southern USA and warm anomalies over the Atlantic, the Greenland area and north-eastern Canada.

For point 4- where is the evidence for this? (And before anyone comes back with, "but there is no need for GWO to provide evidence", to justify that they would need to explain the double standard where he isn't required to provide evidence for his views whereas SSS is).

Re. point 5, it's a while since I last did about oceanography, but I'm sure the Coriolis force did play an important role in governing the Moon's effect on tides.

[Cycles]

For point 4- where is the evidence for this? (And before anyone comes back with, "but there is no need for GWO to provide evidence", to justify that they would need to explain the double standard where he isn't required to provide evidence for his views whereas SSS is).

The cycles are well documented within my book.

David

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Erm, there are no double standards whatsoever

It is AGW proponents who have formatted the artifical anthropogenic theory in terms of the various positive feedbacks that they assume and most importantly rely on to verify the large projected cumulative warming over coming decades. It is down to them as authors of the theory to demonstrate that it works in reality. Putting the responsibility on sceptics is a way of effectively suggesting that the evidence that is being assumed is already reality (before any of the assumed evidential warming has even happened!) and ducking their own responsibility as authors of the hypothesis. If it was real (not a hypothesis/theory) then indeed the onus would be on sceptics to try and demonstrate otherwise, but it isn't. Although it would appear that theory continues to be passed as fact.

As stated previously, theory shoule be subject to repeatable testing - it is that which will progress the verifying of the science. The question of climate variation will be answered only that way, not by trying to pass theory as fact.

Why don't people realise any of that?

Edited March 10, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[sunny starry skies]

No point in feeding a noisemaker who is unable to support his assertions or defend any of the criticisms. Has he looked at the Fischer data? Doubt it. The point was that nothing was well documented in the 'book', or I would have got the information I needed. It absolutely demonstrates a poor understanding of palaeoclimate, tides, orbital mechanics, statistics and data analysis among other things, and no explanations (just fob answers and a failure to look facts in the face) were forthcoming for my questions. I'd rather not further this discussion any more.

Fischer data - high resolution Vostok ice core CO2 data at <200 year intervals, from a paper Dilley references, yet data which Dilley says does not exist. Link in my previous post:

Lunar perigees, which dilley insists occur near solstices/equinoxes, surely as his whole premise is based on lunar cycles he would know they are not. Black vertical lines are the equinoxes and solstices. I couln't be bothered to get the data for earlier, this is sufficient to prove my point. Data from the link in my previous post:

NSSC, there is lots of evidence for albedo and water vapour feedbacks. Plenty of evidence too for the mechanism of CO2 forcing, for why CO2 is a weaker greenhouse gas than menhane (but more important in the context of our emissions), and of course for the shape of the temperature rise during the 20th/21st Century. Plenty of direct observational evidence of the enhancement of the greenhouse effect as well. The hypothesis of AGW forcing is much older than the evidence for its effects, and the evidence is such that it is well and truly elevated to 'theory' (you know the difference between hypothesis and theory?), and been verified many times over. It is incumbent on the skeptics, who's views are contrary to every relevant academy, academic organisation, and major government of this world to provide evidence that this theory is incorrect, or provide a better theory, that both explains the existing evidence, and shows that AGW isn't the culprit for the warming.

sss

[Cycles]

Lunar perigees, which dilley insists occur near solstices/equinoxes, surely as his whole premise is based on lunar cycles he would know they are not. Black vertical lines are the equinoxes and solstices. I couln't be bothered to get the data for earlier, this is sufficient to prove my point. Data from the link in my previous post:

sss

I stated that lunar perigees occur around the time of equinoxes/solstices...did not state they occur on them. By saying around, this means usually within weeks of...not on. You took it too literally. This is why my research is different and not as well documented by other researcher's. I really do not care about the solstices/equnioxes...but I do care about the coincidence of high declination/perigee cycles (greatest gravitational pull on earth, the earth's inner liquid core, the earth's expandable crust and plates, the oceans and even the atmosphere.

[sunny starry skies]

Some interesting research out recently - looks like the cosmic ray - clouds/aerosol hypothesis is standing on increasingly weak ground:

Kumala et al (2010): http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1885/2010/acp-10-1885-2010.html

"Our main conclusion is that galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well."

Calgovic et al (2010): http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2010_calogovic.pdf

"Here we report on an alternative and stringent test of the CRC‐hypothesis [cosmic-ray-cloud hypothesis] by searching for a possible influence of sudden GCR decreases (so‐called Forbush decreases) on clouds. We find no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude."

It looks like competing hypotheses are steadily thinning out now, seemingly in line with increasingly (and baseless) political attacks on climate scientists. I don't think that relationship is a coincidence.

sss

[Admiral_Bobski]

Calgovic et al (2010): http://www.eawag.ch/...0_calogovic.pdf

"Here we report on an alternative and stringent test of the CRC‐hypothesis [cosmic-ray-cloud hypothesis] by searching for a possible influence of sudden GCR decreases (so‐called Forbush decreases) on clouds. We find no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude."

Worth pointing out is this quote from the Calgovic paper:

"Since the only difference between the CRC hypothesis and our approach is the duration of the GCR change, a necessary condition for our test to be applicable is that the time scales of the involved processes are short enough to follow the changes in cosmic rays. In other words, the cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) concentration must drop within 1–2 days and recover during about a week (Figure 1)."

So there is a big If regarding this study. I confess that I do not know enough about the GCR theory to be able to say anything unequivocally, but perhaps the process requires that there is a high and steady bombardment of the atmosphere by GCRs to cause the proposed effect, and that Forbush decreases do not occur over long enough time scales to cause a change in cloud numbers.

Just a thought.

CB

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

No point in feeding a noisemaker who is unable to support his assertions or defend any of the criticisms. Has he looked at the Fischer data? Doubt it. The point was that nothing was well documented in the 'book', or I would have got the information I needed. It absolutely demonstrates a poor understanding of palaeoclimate, tides, orbital mechanics, statistics and data analysis among other things, and no explanations (just fob answers and a failure to look facts in the face) were forthcoming for my questions. I'd rather not further this discussion any more.

Fischer data - high resolution Vostok ice core CO2 data at <200 year intervals, from a paper Dilley references, yet data which Dilley says does not exist. Link in my previous post:

Lunar perigees, which dilley insists occur near solstices/equinoxes, surely as his whole premise is based on lunar cycles he would know they are not. Black vertical lines are the equinoxes and solstices. I couln't be bothered to get the data for earlier, this is sufficient to prove my point. Data from the link in my previous post:

NSSC, there is lots of evidence for albedo and water vapour feedbacks. Plenty of evidence too for the mechanism of CO2 forcing, for why CO2 is a weaker greenhouse gas than menhane (but more important in the context of our emissions), and of course for the shape of the temperature rise during the 20th/21st Century. Plenty of direct observational evidence of the enhancement of the greenhouse effect as well. The hypothesis of AGW forcing is much older than the evidence for its effects, and the evidence is such that it is well and truly elevated to 'theory' (you know the difference between hypothesis and theory?), and been verified many times over. It is incumbent on the skeptics, who's views are contrary to every relevant academy, academic organisation, and major government of this world to provide evidence that this theory is incorrect, or provide a better theory, that both explains the existing evidence, and shows that AGW isn't the culprit for the warming.

sss

Not going to comment much on your further insistencies above. It does make me laugh though when you state that the evidence of AGW has 'elevated it to theory'. Wow - as much as that! I'm truly impressed!

I do not see how the theory can have been verified several times over - the science is incomplete and there are assumptions about the existence of feedbacks that might not even exist! You might have a dream that this has been verified already - but you must be in denial of the fact that something cannot be verified as absolute until it is complete. More research into AGW as well as solar etc (in an ideal world) will hopefully result in more improved evidence that is re testable and should in theory produce more dependable results. But such integrity to the truth is hampered by the situation as I describe below.

The real issues behind this masquerade which virtually everyone agrees on are a cleaner environment, cleaner (and more economical) sources of energy and sustainability of global produce.

It is a huge pity though to progressing those essential objectives that AGW theory is so bigged up as the overriding motivational reason for doing so however. The likes of of whom you mention - the major governments, the IPCC (who are the governmental scientists gofer poodles who have the job of constructing the scientific theory to fit the purpose) and other organisations and well known zealous AGW crusaders such as Hansen and Mann are, as I said yesterday bringing overall Science into disrepute by focussing inflated emphasis on a tenuous theory. The huff and puff that they are exhibiting has been exposed as most know recently in the news.

It would be far more honest to state that AGW is just a theory, with a lot more research required before it can be held up as the ultimate global 'baddie' that it is deemed to be and instead find other much more honest and less alarmist ways of promoting the above vital objectives that are grounded on a much less theoretical basis. That would not be hard to do. There are much less complex and much more direct consequences of squandering and misusing the above resources than any potential climatic impacts - which do not need equally complex theories to back them up. Alas, too much is riding on it now to turn back, it cannot fail at any cost.

Such intrasingence risks coming at a cost. Only time will be the factor I expect that will expose the truth.

On the basis of the above then I think that sceptics are being more honest and open about this - whilst sharing the same objectives as the AGW contigent. So, nope, sceptics do not have to produce another theory. They should work towards the above environmental objectives that virtually everyone knows are essential, but they do not feel that there is any compelling urgency to grasp around for 'theories' in order to justify meeting these objectives. That is just being much more honest as well as not having to shoulder the considerable burden of any pre-constructed alarmist scenarios that are simply intended to prise people into action.

Edited March 10, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Iceberg]

You mean we have an explosion in the number of peer reviewed articles in the last 20 years.

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15557507

and yet no smoking gun to say that AGW doesn't exist and no alternative theory which has much support.

Amazing how we can keep the even the Chinese and Indians towing the line with AGW theory.

I do listen to what you say Tamara, but you've quite savagely attacked the IPCC, attacked certain climate scientists. Blamed AGWers for bringing science into disrepute (but not the saintly likes of Macintye, watts, Monkcton etc).

Said that AGW is a theory that should be just a theory until it can be proven beyond doubt, i.e give it 50 to 100 years etc.

What we have to remember is that AGW as a theory has hundreds of scientists and thousands of peer reviewed papers backing it up. It is a theory, but one with a lot of weight behind it. !

[Thundery wintry showers]

Erm, there are no double standards whatsoever

It is AGW proponents who have formatted the artifical anthropogenic theory in terms of the various positive feedbacks that they assume and most importantly rely on to verify the large projected cumulative warming over coming decades. It is down to them as authors of the theory to demonstrate that it works in reality. Putting the responsibility on sceptics is a way of effectively suggesting that the evidence that is being assumed is already reality (before any of the assumed evidential warming has even happened!) and ducking their own responsibility as authors of the hypothesis. If it was real (not a hypothesis/theory) then indeed the onus would be on sceptics to try and demonstrate otherwise, but it isn't. Although it would appear that theory continues to be passed as fact.

As stated previously, theory shoule be subject to repeatable testing - it is that which will progress the verifying of the science. The question of climate variation will be answered only that way, not by trying to pass theory as fact.

Why don't people realise any of that?

Responsibility should not be placed on either the sceptics or the proponents of AGW, it should apply comparably both ways. Saying that proponents on AGW need to demonstrate that it works (which by definition requires them to provide substantiated evidence for it) is all well and good in itself. But when it's combined with a stance that those with alternative theories should not be required to provide substantiated and demonstrative evidence for the validity of their theories, either it's a double standard or the official definition of "double standard" needs to be revised considerably.

In addition, the existence of AGW is fact, the effects of increasing GHG concentrations on global temperatures has been demonstrated in many scientific experiments and laws of physics. Where it becomes theory is when we speculate on the extent that this forcing affects global temperatures- and this theory is being tested repeatedly as is illustrated by the glut of scientific papers on the subject. I don't entirely trust the current generation of climate models, but I do see the mainstream scientists being held to much, much higher standards than the likes of David Dilley here.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Thundery wintry showers

[sunny starry skies]

Not going to comment much on your further insistencies above. It does make me laugh though when you state that the evidence of AGW has 'elevated it to theory'. Wow - as much as that! I'm truly impressed!

I do not see how the theory can have been verified several times over - the science is incomplete and there are assumptions about the existence of feedbacks that might not even exist! You might have a dream that this has been verified already - but you must be in denial of the fact that something cannot be verified as absolute until it is complete. More research into AGW as well as solar etc (in an ideal world) will hopefully result in more improved evidence that is re testable and should in theory produce more dependable results. But such integrity to the truth is hampered by the situation as I describe below.

The real issues behind this masquerade which virtually everyone agrees on are a cleaner environment, cleaner (and more economical) sources of energy and sustainability of global produce.

It is a huge pity though to progressing those essential objectives that AGW theory is so bigged up as the overriding motivational reason for doing so however. The likes of of whom you mention - the major governments, the IPCC (who are the governmental scientists gofer poodles who have the job of constructing the scientific theory to fit the purpose) and other organisations and well known zealous AGW crusaders such as Hansen and Mann are, as I said yesterday bringing overall Science into disrepute by focussing inflated emphasis on a tenuous theory. The huff and puff that they are exhibiting has been exposed as most know recently in the news.

It would be far more honest to state that AGW is just a theory, with a lot more research required before it can be held up as the ultimate global 'baddie' that it is deemed to be and instead find other much more honest and less alarmist ways of promoting the above vital objectives that are grounded on a much less theoretical basis. That would not be hard to do. There are much less complex and much more direct consequences of squandering and misusing the above resources than any potential climatic impacts - which do not need equally complex theories to back them up. Alas, too much is riding on it now to turn back, it cannot fail at any cost.

Such intrasingence risks coming at a cost. Only time will be the factor I expect that will expose the truth.

On the basis of the above then I think that sceptics are being more honest and open about this - whilst sharing the same objectives as the AGW contigent. So, nope, sceptics do not have to produce another theory. They should work towards the above environmental objectives that virtually everyone knows are essential, but they do not feel that there is any compelling urgency to grasp around for 'theories' in order to justify meeting these objectives. That is just being much more honest as well as not having to shoulder the considerable burden of any pre-constructed alarmist scenarios that are simply intended to prise people into action.

You don't understand the concept of a scientific theory, do you?

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory

Examples include:

Special theory of Relativity

Quantum Mechanics

Big Bang

Evolution

Copernican theory of the solar system

Theory of electromagnetism

AGW theory makes a series of predictions, based on the known properties of greenhouse gases. These predictions have been and are being observed (including feedbacks), hence why the theory is verified by it's different predictions for different parts of the globe, levels of the atmosphere, radiation at different wavelengths above and below the atmosphere, and attendant physical consequences in the atmosphere, ocean and cryosphere. I'm sorry you don't understand that, really I am, but this is 100 years of good science that you wish to brush under the carpet because you don't like it. The theory stands alongside other theories that you're quite happy to accept (I presume you do accept that we orbit the Sun, for example). It will continue to stand until evidence falsifies it or a new theory supercedes it.

If a negative feedback appears that changes the outcome for the Earth, then all well and good, so long as we do something about our greenhouse gas emissions before the negative feedback goes away. You forget that climate scientists would be entirely happy to discover a new property of the system that meant we did not irreversibly alter our global climate. But that's bnot going to happen, based on the evidence. unless of course you have some new evidence to show... You're convinced it's all a conspiracy, but it's not, it's based on observations that verify the predictions of the theory... unless you think there has been a conspiracy for generations and among tens of thousands of scientists across the whole world.

I really enjoyed your bit about the IPCC scientists. You mean the same ones that aren't paid to write the report?

Speaking of conspiracies... 32 organisations involved in both the denial campaign surrounding tobacco and that surrounding AGW:

http://www.realclima...#comment-151461 [comment 855 by Timothy Chase has the list]

sss

Edited March 10, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Gray-Wolf]

Though an aside from the general conversation I find I must thank SSS for their clear ,concise and 'backed up' responses on here since they arrived.

Many folk of a similar stance (I include myself in their numbers) have become increasingly frazzled at some of the sceptics flat refusal to accept the solidity of the evidence that 'WE' have caused a climate problem for the planet (though they all seem to accept a NIMBY stance on general pollution/waste?) with our abuse/overuse of the planets resources.

We certainly do need a detailed explanation from their 'camp' as to what exactly can be shown to cause the changes we are undergoing if not man's messy ways.

Though we, on this side of the house, would dearly love to be wrong members on the opposing benches seem reluctant to bring forth any evidence to make us ALL feel better about things............

[Thundery wintry showers]

Though we, on this side of the house, would dearly love to be wrong members on the opposing benches seem reluctant to bring forth any evidence to make us ALL feel better about things............

For the most part, but there are some honourable exceptions, including certain members of this forum- we need to beware of being too broad-brush in our generalisation of any part of the spectrum.

[Roger J Smith]

Devonian says (of my post about variations in CET anomalies) ...

"I can't seee anyone is denying those fact? I do though wonder if it's advisable to draw firm conclusions from the end point of a data series?"

This is ironic on two levels. First of all, I wasn't drawing any conclusions, I just posted the data because I found them interesting. But the more significant irony is that, if you roll back the clock to early 2007 and ignore the (then future) downturn of temperature that is now the "end point of a data series," then the AGW lobby has done exactly that -- drawn firm conclusions from the end point of a data series (the upturn 1988-2007).

Now it is true that the period in question is about six times longer than the more recent return to long-term average values. But I don't know if that totally absolves the AGW lobby, because the question that remains entirely unresolved is obviously this -- can we be sure that modern warming episodes are outside the realm of natural variability, or to be more precise, how much of these warmings are entirely natural in origin, and how much of them can be attributed to greenhouse gases (even through second-order processes like implied ocean circulation changes)?

I don't claim to know the answer but I have always asserted that I think the factors are significant and that natural variability is probably the larger of the two. This recent downturn tends to confirm my suspicion that this is true. I think we will need a further 30-50 years of data to assess what the proportions really are. This is not something that absolutely has to be used as a reason to delay or postpone action. But I think public opinion in general is probably swinging this way, because people are balancing in their own estimation the potential risks of a warming climate against the potential risks of engaging in major economic changes that have some unknown chance of averting the assumed risks.

That equates to a complex equation like this:

If the average citizen believes that there is a 30% risk of a major environmental change (of negative consequence) and a 40% chance that a proposed solution will avert that risk, then he/she is actually assessing the chances of a successful outcome at 12% (0.3 x 0.4) which will probably cause him or her to consider strongly the avoidance of the risks of the intervention rather than the risks of the outcome.

I think those are relatively accurate ball-park figures of the political landscape we are now entering. Governments know this and are trying to sit on both chairs at once, trying to seem concerned yet also trying to avoid high-cost abrupt changes in policy (taxation for example).

Essentially, you could have a billion published, peer-reviewed papers documenting the risk, but there is nothing to document a sharp or catastrophic actual rise in temperature, because that does not (yet) exist. What does actually exist is the rather inconvenient recent downturn in temperature that is quite perceptible to the biggest peer review group of them all, the voters.

This is basically the problem for climate science -- it tried to extend the boundaries of its scientific paradigm to include the political process. In doing that, climate science failed to anticipate that voters would consider themselves to be peers and begin to study the science in the skeptical way that peer reviewers are supposed to do. This process is now well established, and the larger body of peer reviewers is basically saying, "your scientific papers are not convincing." I am pretty certain that if 2008, 2009 and early 2010 had continued to get warmer and if it were possible to say that the CET anomaly (as one example) was +1.4 for that period, making the 1988-2010 anomaly something like +1.2, then this peer review situation would be much different.

So in other words, climate science is going to have to realize that with millions of peer reviewers out there, they will have to accept the most conservative imaginable paradigm of theory acceptance, which will converge on theory demonstration (arctic ice melting, in other words, and not in some anecdotal sense, but in a large-scale, disappearance of ice scenario).

You can see that once the political realm became part of this scientific question, the whole question of "settled science" in the more limited sense that the "academy" consented, became meaningless, because so what if the academy consented, the academy has no legislative or tax-raising powers. Climate science brought this situation upon themselves and now they are learning that politics is not science. The rules of peer review in politics are even more difficult to satisfy than in science -- you have to be right, and seen to be right, and wanted to be right.

Personally, I expect this debate to go on for several more years, but after people become more used to the dominance of natural variability over the AGW factor, the level of concern will slowly subside. It could be that this debate will just slowly fade from the front page of both our science and politics in general, until one day, it is just a historical curiosity, and that could be in part because we run out of oil and advances in technology lead to a stabilized carbon dioxide level. It may well be that the AGW theory is partly valid but overstated as to magnitude and therefore risk. We may never have a definitive answer, because who's to say what the natural variability trends will be 30, 50, 100 years from now?

Or, it's conceivable that new surges of warmth will convince people of the total validity of the AGW theory, and that it will come to drive political responses. Even there, we might never know for sure if it was some coincidence of natural variation hitting a strong peak at just that time. But history is written by the winners, as they say.

What people believe in the future about this will depend to some extent on how the weather unfolds (into climate) from now to the year 2025. If the CET anomaly stays in the range 0.0 to 1.0 generally speaking, then little is likely to be done (not that the UK climate should decide the whole global issue, but I sense that the CET index is going to vary in sync with other relevant series). If it were to drop into negative territory, then I think the AGW theory will die a rapid death of mass desertions. If it strays into the 1.0 to 2.0 range, then the issue will stay alive and urgent. If it strays above 2.0 (for several years), I will become an AGW lobbyist. Or I will have figured out why that could happen naturally. We'll see ... predictions are useless at this point, the new merged science-politics will follow the facts as they emerge.

[Gray-Wolf]

For the most part, but there are some honourable exceptions, including certain members of this forum- we need to beware of being too broad-brush in our generalisation of any part of the spectrum.

Accepted TWS, my bad

[jethro]

Though an aside from the general conversation I find I must thank SSS for their clear ,concise and 'backed up' responses on here since they arrived.

Many folk of a similar stance (I include myself in their numbers) have become increasingly frazzled at some of the sceptics flat refusal to accept the solidity of the evidence that 'WE' have caused a climate problem for the planet (though they all seem to accept a NIMBY stance on general pollution/waste?) with our abuse/overuse of the planets resources.

We certainly do need a detailed explanation from their 'camp' as to what exactly can be shown to cause the changes we are undergoing if not man's messy ways.

Though we, on this side of the house, would dearly love to be wrong members on the opposing benches seem reluctant to bring forth any evidence to make us ALL feel better about things............

Perhaps, just perhaps, if people stopped viewing this as a "them" and "us" debate, lobbing tit for tat challenges and accusations back and forth across an imaginary divide; there might actually be more agreement and far more science based discussions.

I for one quite often see posts which although utterly wrong from a scientific perspective, I cannot be bothered replying to as it's been aimed in such a confrontational way, it's more trouble than it's worth. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that stance.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

You don't understand the concept of a scientific theory, do you?

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory

Examples include:

Special theory of Relativity

Quantum Mechanics

Big Bang

Evolution

Copernican theory of the solar system

Theory of electromagnetism

AGW theory makes a series of predictions, based on the known properties of greenhouse gases. These predictions have been and are being observed (including feedbacks), hence why the theory is verified by it's different predictions for different parts of the globe, levels of the atmosphere, radiation at different wavelengths above and below the atmosphere, and attendant physical consequences in the atmosphere, ocean and cryosphere. I'm sorry you don't understand that, really I am, but this is 100 years of good science that you wish to brush under the carpet because you don't like it. The theory stands alongside other theories that you're quite happy to accept (I presume you do accept that we orbit the Sun, for example). It will continue to stand until evidence falsifies it or a new theory supercedes it.

If a negative feedback appears that changes the outcome for the Earth, then all well and good, so long as we do something about our greenhouse gas emissions before the negative feedback goes away. You forget that climate scientists would be entirely happy to discover a new property of the system that meant we did not irreversibly alter our global climate. But that's bnot going to happen, based on the evidence. unless of course you have some new evidence to show... You're convinced it's all a conspiracy, but it's not, it's based on observations that verify the predictions of the theory... unless you think there has been a conspiracy for generations and among tens of thousands of scientists across the whole world.

I really enjoyed your bit about the IPCC scientists. You mean the same ones that aren't paid to write the report?

Speaking of conspiracies... 32 organisations involved in both the denial campaign surrounding tobacco and that surrounding AGW:

http://www.realclima...#comment-151461 [comment 855 by Timothy Chase has the list]

sss

I would contest that we orbit the sun as well actually, plus I am a regular flat earther too

in the true denial stance

Thanks for the wikepedia link - but, you see, I am also too thick to understand the explanation.....

I guess now that it is only down to the last scientist who leaves the theory lab to turn the light off on the way out. Job clearly well done.

In the absence of any sceptic theory it might be as well to leave you believers to your own 'love-in'

Edited March 11, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[jethro]

Time for everyone to take a little break.