General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

[Gray-Wolf]

Regarding the industrial revolution, one common point was that many of the "dirty" pollutants early on in the industrial revolution may have provided a greater "global dimming" effect, reducing the extent of the resulting warming. Also, only limited parts of the world were industrially developed at that stage and so global CO2 emissions were significantly lower. In recent years we've had less in the way of global dimming-inducing aerosols and higher CO2 outputs- and CO2 concentrations have been increasing at a rate which is close to exponential.

Way back when I had cause to go over the changing ways we introduced out pollutants into the atmosphere. I remember citing one of the super chimneys in Düsseldorf (I flew out of Bonn) whose 'plume' we flew parallel to as I returned home. The plume was visible as a distinct feature all the way to the North York moors.

In the 1850's the chimneys weren't that tall and the fuel was not burnt very efficiently as time moved on both the efficiency of fuel use and chimney hight increased. By the time the first cooling towers were being built we'd taken to placing pollution many thousands of feet into the air, By the time the 'super chimney' was being built we were throwing our emissions into the stratosphere (thank you Concorde).

How do we work out just the impacts of the differing types of emissions let alone where we introduce them into the atmosphere, never mind which landmass is doing the producing?

Today we have only Antarctica as a continent not responsible for introducing GHG's into the atmosphere by human hands.

To expect instant impacts from our forcings is foolish esp. if we do not know how to qualify the type of impact we are looking for nor any mitigating factors (global dimming,natural cycles) that will offset them.

In time the GHG's will fulfil their physical potentials or will that not come to pass?

I've sat these long years and listened to impatient folk unwilling to believe in the problem we have created because they cannot have the instant gratification of seeing what they expect to see immediately. Like looking at a firework, lighting the point instructed to and calling it a dud because it didn't go 'whoosh' straight away.

Place GHG's into the atmosphere and the will capture heat that otherwise would be lost to the planet. We live within an extremely complex system with many checks and balances at play but ,at the end of the day how will/can they overcome an atmosphere with the potential to hold onto more heat?

Though the Younger Dryas was a cold period was it not the final phase of the end of the last glacial period to that drove it? Were we midst it now, with all the data on the approaching interglacial, I could name the folk on here who would be saying "The glaciation is not over....look at the temps...."

Edited January 18, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[sunny starry skies]

I don't remember the name, but I'm pretty sure it was in my A-Level geography textbook back in 2002, which was merely suggesting that sometimes higher temperatures can be accompanied by higher precipitation which may result in temporary advances of the glaciers. It may well be out of date now though- much of Scandinavia has certainly had some very hot summers since then.

Ah yes, that's probably it then - your book was just out of date. It would concur with some glaciers in Iceland that showed advances until as late as 1990 due to positive mass balance incurred in the 1960s/1970s, but that are now pretty much uniformly in retreat, some spectacularly so. There have been a few winters with exceptional winter precipitation above about 800m, while low-lying areas are snow-free even in midwinter. I saw this for myself in Iceland a while back - very pretty on the central plateau and Vatnajokull in sun and shedloads of snow at 1000m , but below 600m (in mid-March), very little snow, which was truly remarkable to see. The cause - southerly winds for much of the winter. It shows that the precipitation can have a positive mass effect... but only if the summers are cool enough to allow the snow to last (which they've generally not been for Iceland and Scandinavia I think).

sss

[Gray-Wolf]

Global temps;

Seeing as we now have a 'Nino to rival 97' will 2010 be the year that allows AGW adherents to play the same game with temps as we have endured from the Skeptics since 97'?

Can we now choose a cold year from the Noughties and plot a line straight through 2010's peak to show how fast temps are rising?

Do we play join the dots with just 97' and 2010 on the graph? Can we make the mother of all hockey sticks with a plot from the globally dimmed years through the 80's and ending on 2010?

Ho-Hum

[Thundery wintry showers]

Except that we don't have a "Nino to rival '97"- that was an exceptional El Nino, this looks like being a more moderate one.

[jethro]

Global temps;

Seeing as we now have a 'Nino to rival 97' will 2010 be the year that allows AGW adherents to play the same game with temps as we have endured from the Skeptics since 97'?

Can we now choose a cold year from the Noughties and plot a line straight through 2010's peak to show how fast temps are rising?

Do we play join the dots with just 97' and 2010 on the graph? Can we make the mother of all hockey sticks with a plot from the globally dimmed years through the 80's and ending on 2010?

Ho-Hum

Seeing as we've started a new year, will 2010 be the year that allows everyone who wishes to participate in this debate, to play the game nicely without the inclusion of "us" and "them"?

Can we collectively decide to shrug off those labels and start conversations from an unbiased baseline?

Do we play "let's find common ground to unite and perhaps persuade others" or do we start this year the same as last, and the one before that, the one before that one and probably all the other years too and continue to stand either side of the divide, shouting over the fence at each other?

Haven't we all endured enough of that already?

Ho hum :o

[Gray-Wolf]

Except that we don't have a "Nino to rival '97"- that was an exceptional El Nino, this looks like being a more moderate one.

We were 'moderate /strong' the last I looked TWS and with some way to go before reaching peak values?

The last time I saw the NOAA use the term 'moderate' on it's own was back in late Nov.?

As far as the releases I've been reading the current state of the El' Nino surpasses all but the 97' event but I am willing to be corrected on this point if you can point me in the right direction

As I understand things we are gradually increasing the planets overall temp, even though we endure the natural variation, so each 'Nino has less to do to rival the global temps attained back in 97'.

As such do we not expect 'lesser' events to produce higher annual global temps as the years roll by? are we to witness this in 2010 with a lesser event than 97' 'Nino being held up as the reason for record global temps for that year?

[sunny starry skies]

Except that we don't have a "Nino to rival '97"- that was an exceptional El Nino, this looks like being a more moderate one.

But we do have an El Nino. The pattern from 1998 has been: large El Nino... small La Nina... small El Nino... neutral ENSO... small La Nina, which traces out as a negative trend for heat release from the south Pacific over that time period. This very probably is the reason why temperature records have not been tumbling in the Noughties, as ENSO has counterbalanced GHG warming. This shows in the graphs I link to above. ENSO wiggles combined with volcanic forcing (El Chicon, Pinatubo) explain rather a lot of the wiggles about that upward trend... If we have a return to El Nino, or at least enough El Nino to return the decadal average of heat release from the South Pacific to neutral, then we are very likely to have a return to exceptionally high global temperatures, perhaps threatening the record books.

I'm having trouble posting figures at the mo, but the ENSO graph is here: http://www.esrl.noaa...aus.wolter/MEI/

Monthly temperature indices here (3 flavours): http://tamino.wordpr...riddle-me-this/

sss

I'm happy not to call people names Jethro, but also not afraid to shoot down unceremoniously any unsubstantiated sludge that gets trawled up from the denier blogs and bandied round as if it were an unrefuted silver bullet that shoots AGW theory down in flames. I will of course endeavour to be polite and criticise the science!

I rather like Greenfyre's attempt at it:

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/climate-change-denial-nothing-but-lies-and-frauds/

where he puts out a challenge for any substantial science that successfully refutes the core AGW theory and/or observation, without being found to be incorrect in itself. It should be something that disproves the core science and not the minor details, and stands up to the full glare of peer-reviewed scrutiny. Tales of global conspiracies, when there are thousands of journals to choose from, and many examples of anti-AGW papers that have passed review but subsequently had their science deconstructed, will not do. So far Greenfyre has not had any successful takers, but there have been a few posters on here convinced that AGW is political/a myth/lies and deception etc. Anyone care to try and pass a piece of sound research (and not one that can and has been successfully debunked, and certainly not any political diatribes) past critical eyes on here?

Edited January 18, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[jethro]

I'm happy not to call people names Jethro, but also not afraid to shoot down unceremoniously any unsubstantiated sludge that gets trawled up from the denier blogs and bandied round as if it were an unrefuted silver bullet that shoots AGW theory down in flames. I will of course endeavour to be polite and criticise the science!

And I'm happy for the science to be discussed too.

However, I do object to combative posts and the general "us and them" tones. None of this is a battle, there are no prizes to be won. No one person, nor one side of this debate is absolutely right, it is a shifting discussion in a shifting world of science.

Some are more learned than others on here, tolerance and respect for that together with acceptance of other views without the need to convert leads to a wider discussion for all.

Don't we all benefit from that?

[Thundery wintry showers]

But we do have an El Nino. The pattern from 1998 has been: large El Nino... small La Nina... small El Nino... neutral ENSO... small La Nina, which traces out as a negative trend for heat release from the south Pacific over that time period. This very probably is the reason why temperature records have not been tumbling in the Noughties, as ENSO has counterbalanced GHG warming. This shows in the graphs I link to above. ENSO wiggles combined with volcanic forcing (El Chicon, Pinatubo) explain rather a lot of the wiggles about that upward trend... If we have a return to El Nino, or at least enough El Nino to return the decadal average of heat release from the South Pacific to neutral, then we are very likely to have a return to exceptionally high global temperatures, perhaps threatening the record books.

I've generally suspected this myself- I think ENSO may have contributed heavily to the lack of warming over the last decade. I have a feeling that to a lesser extent a less strongly positive NAO and reduced solar activity may have made negative contributions to the temperature anomaly also. With this in mind it will be interesting to see how warm 2010 turns out to be with an El Nino, comparing with the strength of the 1998 El Nino and the respective global temperature anomalies.

December 2009 was not outstandingly warm averaged globally but the anomalous pressure patterns, leading to cold anomalies over the Northern Hemisphere land masses and warm anomalies over the oceans, may have had a lot to do with this.

[jethro]

Anyone have any idea why this Nino hasn't been interacting in the traditional fashion, which usually leads to a warm, wet winter over here?

[Gray-Wolf]

Let me try ! , let me try! ......is it because certain global atmospheric 'patterns' out trump others and the outstanding negative A.O. out-trumped the forming ENSO influence as it's impacts translated from the Tropics through the temperate zones poleward ?????

I think we'll find that the current 'Nino will show global influence on a par with the 97' event but that it's 'flavour' of impacts, and spread of impacts, will be specific to the conditions it was born into.

When we look at global ENSO impacts are we not ,again, looking at an averaging out of those impacts?

As for NW Europe well I'd imagine that as the impacts of the negative AO abate, and the Atlantic storms into wakefulness, there will be a path for some of this 'extra energy' to be dissappated...... and it will not be in the form of blocking High Pressure systems!

[Solar Cycles]

Anyone have any idea why this Nino hasn't been interacting in the traditional fashion, which usually leads to a warm, wet winter over here?

Would that not be due, to there being a negative PDO Jethro?

Also, I 'll do my best to try and not get involved in the constant merry go round of name calling, and tit for tat arguments Jethro!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Anyone care to try and pass a piece of sound research (and not one that can and has been successfully debunked, and certainly not any political diatribes) past critical eyes on here?

VP and I have been trying to do just that with our own studies...and the response we have got is largely the cause of my absence from these boards. I mean, honestly, what's the point?

I am fed up with making counter-arguments, pointing out logical absurdities and trying to discuss science without any of the associated political, moral or emotional rubbish that seems to always come up in these debates, only to find that those I argue against drone on with the same old stuff as though nothing has been discussed.

I'm sick of putting the time and effort into reading up on the latest (and in some cases the oldest) research, putting forward legitimate questions and counter-arguments only to have them shot down with comments along the lines of "oh, so you're calling the experts idiots, are you?" or "well, I think I'll trust the scientists rather than some poster on some forum or blog somewhere."

I do not see the point in continuing a debate which never evolves, never takes on board the outcome of previous discussions. I don't see the point of putting the effort into making good, solid arguments only to have them misrepresented...and that's assuming anyone even bothers to read them properly. And I have lost count of the number of posts I have put up over the years which have been completely ignored by all and sundry.

I made a New Year's resolution this year to finally grab the bull by the horns and get on with my life - sort out my financial troubles once and for all, get back to writing stories - and unfortunately that also means leaving the Netweather boards behind.

Happy 2010.

CB

[noggin]

Should we accpet the Indian govts paper you quote without question?

Genuine question, Dev.....do you accept what the IPCC says, without question?

Please excuse the plethora of "questions" in my question.

The one cheap potshot I'll take is the one against Benny Peiser... And only then to point out again, justifiably, that he's not qualified to inform the public on climate as he's a social anthropologist and an historian of sport. Trust the Daily Mail to believe him! noggin, you wonder about political axes to grind? Look no further than the unqualified Benny Peiser!

I know that Dr. Peiser is a social anthropologist. He wasn't talking about the science but about the scientists. Unless they are non-human then they are bound to exhibit human traits and the more "flak" (for want of a better word) that there is flying around them, then the tighter and more entrenched they will become. It is human nature. They are not immune. It happens on these very boards too! It is relevant.

[jethro]

Let me try ! , let me try! ......is it because certain global atmospheric 'patterns' out trump others and the outstanding negative A.O. out-trumped the forming ENSO influence as it's impacts translated from the Tropics through the temperate zones poleward ?????

I think we'll find that the current 'Nino will show global influence on a par with the 97' event but that it's 'flavour' of impacts, and spread of impacts, will be specific to the conditions it was born into.

When we look at global ENSO impacts are we not ,again, looking at an averaging out of those impacts?

As for NW Europe well I'd imagine that as the impacts of the negative AO abate, and the Atlantic storms into wakefulness, there will be a path for some of this 'extra energy' to be dissappated...... and it will not be in the form of blocking High Pressure systems!

I don't know is the honest answer. I've tried to keep up with the technical discussions over in the weather section but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer there either.

The AO and NAO have both been incredibly negative but that just begs the question why? I recall some mention of ozone and Solar minimum being linked to all this but details are vague. As for the rest of this year and El Nino, time will tell.

Would that not be due, to there being a negative PDO Jethro?

Also, I 'll do my best to try and not get involved in the constant merry go round of name calling, and tit for tat arguments Jethro!

I would have thought the impact of a negative PDO would be to peg back the intensity of an El Nino rather than the impacts, that is however guesswork on my part.

Stepping off the merry go round.....you're a star

VP and I have been trying to do just that with our own studies...and the response we have got is largely the cause of my absence from these boards. I mean, honestly, what's the point?

I am fed up with making counter-arguments, pointing out logical absurdities and trying to discuss science without any of the associated political, moral or emotional rubbish that seems to always come up in these debates, only to find that those I argue against drone on with the same old stuff as though nothing has been discussed.

I'm sick of putting the time and effort into reading up on the latest (and in some cases the oldest) research, putting forward legitimate questions and counter-arguments only to have them shot down with comments along the lines of "oh, so you're calling the experts idiots, are you?" or "well, I think I'll trust the scientists rather than some poster on some forum or blog somewhere."

I do not see the point in continuing a debate which never evolves, never takes on board the outcome of previous discussions. I don't see the point of putting the effort into making good, solid arguments only to have them misrepresented...and that's assuming anyone even bothers to read them properly. And I have lost count of the number of posts I have put up over the years which have been completely ignored by all and sundry.

I made a New Year's resolution this year to finally grab the bull by the horns and get on with my life - sort out my financial troubles once and for all, get back to writing stories - and unfortunately that also means leaving the Netweather boards behind.

Happy 2010.

CB

Evening Captain, good to see you back.

Must say I'm surprised at you giving up, come on, you're made of sterner stuff than that. All joking apart, the stuff you and VP have been working upon is brilliant, certainly deserving of more attention that it's received but I'd be disappointed if you let that put you off. Anything worth having rarely comes easy, if you two are not going to fight for it to be heard, then who will?

[Devonian]

Genuine question, Dev.....do you accept what the IPCC says, without question?

Please excuse the plethora of "questions" in my question.

Questions are good. Answer: NO!

I'm 51. I've been interested in the weather since the mid sixties when my parents bought a max/min thermometer and we were gifted a rainguage. I first became aware of the reality of the greenhouse effect oh, I dunno, late seventies. I became aware of AGW again, I dunno, mid late eighties I guess. I've always dipped into weather and climate books, I've been a RMS member since 1981 read Weather ever since. In all that time I've not seen a scientist doubt the basics of AGW - double CO2 and we will see ~1C warming effect. Do I question that? No, I think it's established science - I can't see how it could be wrong.

What I do question is feedbacks. So does science and the IPCC because that's where the projected warming changes fro a pretty certain ~1C to 2-4C (or if you like 1.5/5.8C) - there IS doubt. This has been my position for all the time I've posted here and elsewhere - the basic science pretty much settled, the feedbacks less so. Sometimes I think doubling CO2 will cause 2C warming, other science pushes me to think 4C. Which it is I don't know. I think warming <2 for a CO2 doubling unlikely.

Does that mean the IPCC should be disbanded? Go figure

I know that Dr. Peiser is a social anthropologist. He wasn't talking about the science but about the scientists. Unless they are non-human then they are bound to exhibit human traits and the more "flak" (for want of a better word) that there is flying around them, then the tighter and more entrenched they will become. It is human nature. They are not immune. It happens on these very boards too! It is relevant.

Applies on both sides - to my mind thus cancels out. That send us back to the science.

VP and I have been trying to do just that with our own studies...and the response we have got is largely the cause of my absence from these boards. I mean, honestly, what's the point?

I am fed up with making counter-arguments, pointing out logical absurdities and trying to discuss science without any of the associated political, moral or emotional rubbish that seems to always come up in these debates, only to find that those I argue against drone on with the same old stuff as though nothing has been discussed.

I'm sick of putting the time and effort into reading up on the latest (and in some cases the oldest) research, putting forward legitimate questions and counter-arguments only to have them shot down with comments along the lines of "oh, so you're calling the experts idiots, are you?" or "well, I think I'll trust the scientists rather than some poster on some forum or blog somewhere."

I do not see the point in continuing a debate which never evolves, never takes on board the outcome of previous discussions. I don't see the point of putting the effort into making good, solid arguments only to have them misrepresented...and that's assuming anyone even bothers to read them properly. And I have lost count of the number of posts I have put up over the years which have been completely ignored by all and sundry.

I made a New Year's resolution this year to finally grab the bull by the horns and get on with my life - sort out my financial troubles once and for all, get back to writing stories - and unfortunately that also means leaving the Netweather boards behind.

Happy 2010.

CB

Well, I always try just to state my view - I would be dishonest not to.

As Jethro says, it hard to change peoples mind - believe me I (we all) know that. If you think your case is good keep making it. I can't say I'll accept if, or until, you (and VP) convince me though I'm afraid.

[Devonian]

Anyone have any idea why this Nino hasn't been interacting in the traditional fashion, which usually leads to a warm, wet winter over here?

Seems to me if you roll dice that have various weighting that with time you'll, on average, get similar results. It also seems to me that if you change the weight on one number, gradually increasing that weighting as well, that (bar the obvious trend towards the weighted number) you can't rule out other numbers turning up?

The climate dice are more and more loaded but climate can still spring surprised?

[Thundery wintry showers]

VP and I have been trying to do just that with our own studies...and the response we have got is largely the cause of my absence from these boards. I mean, honestly, what's the point?

I am fed up with making counter-arguments, pointing out logical absurdities and trying to discuss science without any of the associated political, moral or emotional rubbish that seems to always come up in these debates, only to find that those I argue against drone on with the same old stuff as though nothing has been discussed.

I'm sick of putting the time and effort into reading up on the latest (and in some cases the oldest) research, putting forward legitimate questions and counter-arguments only to have them shot down with comments along the lines of "oh, so you're calling the experts idiots, are you?" or "well, I think I'll trust the scientists rather than some poster on some forum or blog somewhere."

I do not see the point in continuing a debate which never evolves, never takes on board the outcome of previous discussions. I don't see the point of putting the effort into making good, solid arguments only to have them misrepresented...and that's assuming anyone even bothers to read them properly. And I have lost count of the number of posts I have put up over the years which have been completely ignored by all and sundry.

I made a New Year's resolution this year to finally grab the bull by the horns and get on with my life - sort out my financial troubles once and for all, get back to writing stories - and unfortunately that also means leaving the Netweather boards behind.

Happy 2010.

CB

That would be a big shame, I have always valued your contributions- you have always put in some pretty good points from a moderate 'sceptical' type of position, just as the likes of Parmenides3 and Sunny Starry Skies are much valued for their good points from a moderate 'in line with the main consensus' type of position. The interaction between relatively moderate, well-rounded positions from varying degrees of scepticism, as opposed to the two extremes, is exactly the sort of thing we need in these threads- they can identify areas of common ground and areas of truth and uncertainty in the scientific consensus view. While I have seen your theories and posts met with scorn, it is usually only from certain members.

While many of the more measured scientists who broadly agree with the IPCC's conclusions are tired of extremism from 'skeptics', they do welcome well-reasoned counterarguments. One of the most effective ways of making scientific progress is to identify potential holes in current thinking, whereupon we can survey the evidence and find that it either reinforces current thinking, or suggests that the truth differs, in which case the consensus view can be modified accordingly.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Thundery wintry showers

[jethro]

Seems to me if you roll dice that have various weighting that with time you'll, on average, get similar results. It also seems to me that if you change the weight on one number, gradually increasing that weighting as well, that (bar the obvious trend towards the weighted number) you can't rule out other numbers turning up?

The climate dice are more and more loaded but climate can still spring surprised?

Don't know.

I do however know it reminds me of this quote:

"Despite the sophistication of our efforts, perhaps our ignorance exceeds our knowledge".

[Gray-Wolf]

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50014

Well if the IPCC glacier thingy was just 'guesswork' the above isn't.

The lack of data on the loss of Himalayan glaciers does not alter what happens to them as climate shifts and Monsoon fails.

C-Bob, good luck with all of your intentions, I really do wish you well in everything and if you put as much of yourself into them as you have your time here then there is nothing that can stop you (maybe the odd delay??)

[Gray-Wolf]

I do however know it reminds me of this quote:

"Despite the sophistication of our efforts, perhaps our ignorance exceeds our knowledge".

Which leaves us using our imagination and past experience to guide us?

Relying on data sets that ,by their nature,are too small for the task at hand will always potentially lead to wide margins of error. With our problems so immediate surely we must use our nous (whilst continuing with the science) to bring us a 'flavour' of what to expect.

Being 'outside' of the science I have only my understanding of our world to guide my projections of our future and ,at the last, that always involves raising the GHG levels of our atmosphere.

Until my understanding of them and their work is overturned they will always remain the last piece in the jig-saw and will always end up doing what they do.

The unknowns may well be the biggest part and have the biggest role in our present climate shift but does not our past experience show that they include huge positive GHG feedbacks once temp reaches certain thresholds? Our current methane issues highlight what the past few years of Arctic melt has brought to us. Is that issue resolved and we can expect no more outpourings or are we content that we have nudged the Arctic to the point where the problem increases from here on in?

We know the planets carbon cycle holds far in excess of the GHG's we could ever release but our efforts to alter our world (to our advantage) will prove fundamental in their release. We are the blue touch paper ,they are the rocket.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

Just a quick final note before I go on my sabbatical

Firstly, thank you to all who have made kind comments on my post. At this precise moment in time I do intend to come back at some point, but I don't know when that may be - we'll have to see how things pan out at my end. I shall keep an eye on the boards in the meantime, to keep myself relatively up to date on the state of the argument.

Before I go I would like to quickly apologise to sunny starry skies if my post seemed like an attack on him (or her - sorry for being gender-non-specific!). I replied to the quote in that post because it made me realise why I haven't been posting on these boards recently, and I would like to stress that I have no gripe with sunny starry skies.

Anyway, I shall call it a day for now and I hope to return in the not-too-distant future.

One final thought for people to mull over while I'm away...can anyone disprove the Leaky Integrator...?

All the best to everyone for 2010!

CB (Rob)

[Methuselah]

Just a quick final note before I go on my sabbatical

Firstly, thank you to all who have made kind comments on my post. At this precise moment in time I do intend to come back at some point, but I don't know when that may be - we'll have to see how things pan out at my end. I shall keep an eye on the boards in the meantime, to keep myself relatively up to date on the state of the argument.

Before I go I would like to quickly apologise to sunny starry skies if my post seemed like an attack on him (or her - sorry for being gender-non-specific!). I replied to the quote in that post because it made me realise why I haven't been posting on these boards recently, and I would like to stress that I have no gripe with sunny starry skies.

Anyway, I shall call it a day for now and I hope to return in the not-too-distant future.

One final thought for people to mull over while I'm away...can anyone disprove the Leaky Integrator...?

All the best to everyone for 2010!

CB (Rob)

All the best, Rob. Don't stay away for too long! :lol: :lol:

[sunny starry skies]

Just a quick final note before I go on my sabbatical

Firstly, thank you to all who have made kind comments on my post. At this precise moment in time I do intend to come back at some point, but I don't know when that may be - we'll have to see how things pan out at my end. I shall keep an eye on the boards in the meantime, to keep myself relatively up to date on the state of the argument.

Before I go I would like to quickly apologise to sunny starry skies if my post seemed like an attack on him (or her - sorry for being gender-non-specific!). I replied to the quote in that post because it made me realise why I haven't been posting on these boards recently, and I would like to stress that I have no gripe with sunny starry skies.

Anyway, I shall call it a day for now and I hope to return in the not-too-distant future.

One final thought for people to mull over while I'm away...can anyone disprove the Leaky Integrator...?

All the best to everyone for 2010!

CB (Rob)

No worries Rob, no insult taken. I suppose I've taken a fair trawl round the web in search of good evidence that would contradict AGW, and successfully support a non-AGW solution to the problem. Now, as I've said in the past to VP, I like the Leaky Integrator idea, but I think it is merely a way of showing how the climate system works, and not what the various forcong mechanisms are. It's about the most constructive non-GHG discussion I've seen on the Web. It's clear there are various lags and feedbacks in the system, and the LI can demonstrate these to an extent. However, I also don't think it can test the difference between GHG forcing and solar forcing, and by it's definition can't provide the physical mechanism by which one is stronger than the other? Please correct me if I'm wrong!

I should maybe post this in the LI thread, but is there not a way to test LI (solar forcing)? Using palaeoclimate records for the last 500 years or so and sunspot records... if you can show with a record corrected for ENSO and volcanic, that an LI mechanism explains the variations, then you've made a start.

My biggest caveat is that correlation is not causation. Reproduction of a pattern of wiggles is half the problem, the next thing is finding a mechanism. There's a good physical reason why GHGs raise the climate above what it otherwise would be without GHGs, but so far not the same reason for solar variations. So far as I can see, you could explain GHG warming with the LI by having the same energy input and reducing the size of your outlet, to mimic the energy retained in the system by GHGs.

But one thing I will not say is that the LI idea is silly / dismiss it out of hand. It's a good idea, but I remain cordially unconvinced until you can show me that you can reproduce past and present changes, and have a mechanism why it should be solar and not GHG. I think if I were to be reviewing the hypothesis as a paper, that would be my caveat if you were to be making significant comment about global climate. Are you thinking of publishing it?

sss

[Edit: Have posted these points in LI discussion, so replies probably best there]

Edited January 19, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[noggin]

Just a quick final note before I go on my sabbatical

CB (Rob)

Cheers, Rob.

All the very best to you and your family.

Well, I always try just to state my view - I would be dishonest not to.

Cheers, Dev. I appreciate the reply!