Comments
I’m not so sure it’s irony so much as a petrol company cowed into paying for this rubbish for good PR...


But no dissenting speakers? I thought dissent was patriotic and all that!

Written By: shark
URL: http://
But no dissenting speakers? I thought dissent was patriotic and all that!
Not when you have God on your side.


Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
I’m not so sure it’s irony so much as a petrol company cowed into paying for this rubbish for good PR...
Unless that petrol company wasn’t so much cowed as recognized a business opportunity. Check out that list of speakers, particularly their job titles and employers.



Written By: Shasta
URL: http://
The skeptics are of minor importance and politically driven. You scour the internet to find a dissenting voice here and there (while ignoring the thousands who agree) and then post it as if it were something important. Your ability to hold on to your politically motivated beliefs despite reality is breathtaking, McQ!

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The skeptics are of minor importance and politically driven.
The skeptics are of minor importance only if they’re wrong. And to claim that the AGW proponents aren’t politically driven is to be ideologically blinded.

Riddle me this, batman: is it true or false that there’s an 800 year lag on average between the onset of a warming period and a corresponding rise in CO2 levels?

Is it true or false that temperatures in the troposphere would be the best indicator of weather the warming trend on the ground is caused by greenhouse gases?

Is it true or false that temperatures in the troposphere are not increasing?

Is it true or false that these is a strong corellation between temperature variations in the past 150 years and solar activity?


Are you going to continue to use ad hominem and to bray about the "consensus" in discussing those skeptical of AGW, or are you going to use solid data and logical analysis? (I already know the answer to this one.)
Your ability to hold on to your politically motivated beliefs despite reality is breathtaking, McQ!
The sound you just heard was the entire readership of QandO collectively rolling their eyes.

Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
The skeptics are of minor importance and politically driven.


Sounds like a description of the "Humans are to blame" crowd. Unfortunatly they are winning the political war.

Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
Steverino,

Please see my comments in the last Climate related thread but I’ll just quickly answer your questions:
is it true or false that there’s an 800 year lag on average between the onset of a warming period and a corresponding rise in CO2 levels?
True but how is that relevant to today when no such lag is apparent?
Is it true or false that temperatures in the troposphere would be the best indicator of weather(sic) the warming trend on the ground is caused by greenhouse gases?
It is true that they would be a good indicator and the most recent work done indicates that warming is occurring (as opposed to the initially erroneous Spencer & Christy work)
Is it true or false that temperatures in the troposphere are not increasing?
false, see above. if you think it is true, you are several years and some mistaken analysis behind. See above.
Is it true or false that these is a strong corellation (sic) between temperature variations in the past 150 years and solar activity?
False. There is a correlation, but I would not call it strong. If you are referring to the Friis-Christiensen and lassen curve, then you are again a bit behind the science.

Now if you were to ask me if there is a solar component to the current change in climate I would say that I think it is likely. If you were to ask me what the mechanism was I would say that I am not sure - some variation in the hardest part of the spectrum coupled to large scale planetary waves as an amplifying mechanism might do it but it is far from clear. If you were to ask me about cloud seeding by cosmic rays I would say it is a very interesting theory that deserves a lot more investigation but I would also point to the lack of evidence of any trend in the cosmic ray flux, which would be important if that were the chief mechanism for climate change.

Scott Erb,
I think that McQ is mistaken in some of his climate-related opinions but I don’t think that it is politically motivated. The problem is one of complexity; the science is very complex and it is difficult to get that across to the layman in short form and do rarely does the media try - every new bit of evidence is overhyped and over emphasised such that it almost induces a contrarian response. In many ways the current anti-AGW is to be expected since the focus of the debate was taken mostly out of the science and into the media and politics. Talk of consensus does not help the issue; although it is true that the vast majority of climate scientists think that AGW is the most likely explanation for the observables if you say it is a consensus people automatically think you are appealing to the majority view - a logical fallacy. However, what the term means in the sense it is employed by the scientists themselves is that they have all looked at the evidence and weighed it and decided that on the balance of probabilities there is a strong man-made component to climate change.

Please remember that many of the most vocal proponents of man-made climate change are also ideologically driven and actually have as little grasp of the true meaning of the science as the so-called skeptics. Of course that is not to say that there is a grand conspiracy, though many do.

You know, I have often said I am going to leave climate threads alone (I said as much to McQ this week) but I cannot help myself sometimes. It is like picking at a scab...

Written By: kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
Addendum:

Having just reread my comment I should point out that I am not trying to excuse the hyperbole used by scientists in broadcasting their results - we are not immune in any way shape or form to making stupid extrapolations and statements.

This is an interesting story.

Two leading UK climate researchers have criticised those among their peers who they say are "overplaying" the global warming message.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, are voicing their concern at a conference in Oxford. They say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science. The pair believe this damages the credibility of all climate scientists.
Indeed. Please read it all, it makes a point that I think is highly important.

Written By: kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
I think that McQ is mistaken in some of his climate-related opinions but I don’t think that it is politically motivated. The problem is one of complexity; the science is very complex and it is difficult to get that across to the layman in short form and do rarely does the media try - every new bit of evidence is overhyped and over emphasised such that it almost induces a contrarian response. In many ways the current anti-AGW is to be expected since the focus of the debate was taken mostly out of the science and into the media and politics. Talk of consensus does not help the issue; although it is true that the vast majority of climate scientists think that AGW is the most likely explanation for the observables if you say it is a consensus people automatically think you are appealing to the majority view - a logical fallacy. However, what the term means in the sense it is employed by the scientists themselves is that they have all looked at the evidence and weighed it and decided that on the balance of probabilities there is a strong man-made component to climate change.
I believe McQ is doing what many very politically minded people do: he avoids cognitive dissonance and having to alter a view (and tell opponents they may well have been right) by seeking out and choosing evidence which supports the view he held. This is not something done more often by the right or the left, and all of us fall into that trap numerous times in all aspects of our lives.

What irks me is the mix of insult and derision against those who do believe that global warming is real and is at least in part caused by human activity, and that it is prudent for us humans to try to limit that activity. Moreover, I’m on record opposing the kind of extensive intervention by governments to try to control this that scare people like McQ.

As for appealing to the majority — most people do not seriously take a position on global warming due to the science because most people lack the scientific training to really know if an argument has merit, and most don’t know all the counter evidence. Thus to me there is always going to be a bit of trust involved, as well as a probability assessment. It’s comparable to big bang theory vs. steady state theory for the origin of the universe. At one time it was a major controversy, and slowly evidence came in supporting the big bang. Now we have a number of "big bang skeptics," who sometimes make the news, but the scientific consensus is that the big bang theory is accurate.

I’ve learned about the science, I understand how evidence has convinced people that the big bang is correct, but I honestly can’t say I really can compare the mathematics and details of the two models.

On global warming I know scientists, including conservative scientists, who are absolutely convinced that the consensus is accurate, and get angry at how some in America go at this view from a political motivation, looking for any reason possible to try to make it sound like we’re doing fine. They are concerned, with good reason, that the next century could see our children and grand children facing severe risks if there isn’t some kind of action today. The attacks on people trying to talk about the dangers of global warming undercut not just big government action, but efforts to create incentives for voluntary and effective action to mitigate the problem perhaps a bit.

I know I may be wrong, I know the global warming consensus may be wrong. But it would be nice if those citing the skeptics would recognize that perhaps the skeptics might be wrong, and it’s very possible that human activity is part of the problem. I get frustrated, and it shows in my posts, that people citing the skeptics seem to think it’s self-evident that global warming is all hype, and that their view is the only reasonable view. I can understand that they are frustrated that the skeptics are dismissed in the same boat as holocaust deniers. That obviously goes too far because the skeptics here may be right, and the holocaust deniers cannot be right.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I can understand that they are frustrated that the skeptics are dismissed in the same boat as holocaust deniers. That obviously goes too far because the skeptics here may be right, and the holocaust deniers cannot be right.


You have hit the nail on the head. One reason for doubting the theory of human causation of global warming is, it’s proponents denial of the possibilities of any contrary evidence. Instead of engaging in dialog with skeptics, they brand them as “deniers” or worse "lackeys of Big Oil.”

The second problem is the character of those who support human causation. These political legions are the same people who regular turn out for all leftist causes. The alliance between scientists who believe in man caused global warming with those with extreme leftist political views makes many uneasy.

The multitude of variables make the issue difficult for the layman to understand. Few will try. The question is will the answer be provided by the Scientific or Political communities. Science triumphing over Politics would be a strange and unusual phoneme to observe.

Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
The second problem is the character of those who support human causation. These political legions are the same people who regular turn out for all leftist causes. The alliance between scientists who believe in man caused global warming with those with extreme leftist political views makes many uneasy.

The multitude of variables make the issue difficult for the layman to understand. Few will try. The question is will the answer be provided by the Scientific or Political communities. Science triumphing over Politics would be a strange and unusual phoneme to observe.
I don’t think many people believe it’s total human causation, but given what we’ve put in the atmosphere (and given the example of Venus) we certainly could be making a difference.

But geez, my motivation is my children, one about to turn 4, one 14 months. Between global warming and peak oil theory, I can’t help but wonder what kind of world they will inherit. I don’t want to panic, and I don’t want to empower government out of fear, but I do want to take these concerns seriously.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
True but how is that relevant to today when no such lag is apparent?
Well, either you’ve discovered the first case where the fingerprints arrived at the scene of the crime before the criminal, or the two coexisting conditions are not related.

The relevance is that we’ve got plenty of evidence that CO2 levels increase after a warming cycle has begun, but this particular time we’re told that increasing CO2 levels are causing a warming cycle. That doesn’t make sense. Yes, it’s possible that increasing CO2 is warming the earth, but it’s far more likely that something else is causing the warming.


Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
I know I may be wrong, I know the global warming consensus may be wrong. But it would be nice if those citing the skeptics would recognize that perhaps the skeptics might be wrong,
Yeah, except that practically everyone seems to cite this mystical consensus as being infallable. It HAS to work both ways.
But geez, my motivation is my children, one about to turn 4, one 14 months. Between global warming and peak oil theory, I can’t help but wonder what kind of world they will inherit. I don’t want to panic, and I don’t want to empower government out of fear, but I do want to take these concerns seriously.
Cue the Simpsons: "Won’t somebody please think of the children!"

I must say, I find that quite melodramatic. Especially since you worry about "peak oil theory" (a load of crapola) and not at all about the clash with radical Islam. Strange choice of priorities. Your kids can always drive Ed Begley Jr’s solar powered car, unless an Islamonut blows them up.

Written By: shark
URL: http://
Yeah, except that practically everyone seems to cite this mystical consensus as being infallable.
These days “consensus” seems to be defined as a group of like minded people who have seized the “Bully Pulpit” to announce their “profound revelation” without giving sceptics any chance to reply. This applies to all aspects of life, not just Global warming.
I don’t think many people believe it’s total human causation, but given what we’ve put in the atmosphere (and given the example of Venus) we certainly could be making a difference.
Human emissions of greenhouse gas is a tiny percentage of total greenhouse emissions. When biomass rotting produces an estimated three hundred gigatons of CO2 compared with 1.2 gigatons produced by humans, I tend to become skeptical.

Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
Your kids can always drive Ed Begley Jr’s solar powered car, unless an Islamonut blows them up.
Can I get that on a bumper sticker? Goddamn, that’s a great line. I’m stealing it, too, for use in casual conversation.

Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Cue the Simpsons: "Won’t somebody please think of the children!"
Let me guess: You don’t have kids, do you?

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Well, either you’ve discovered the first case where the fingerprints arrived at the scene of the crime before the criminal, or the two coexisting conditions are not related.

The relevance is that we’ve got plenty of evidence that CO2 levels increase after a warming cycle has begun, but this particular time we’re told that increasing CO2 levels are causing a warming cycle. That doesn’t make sense. Yes, it’s possible that increasing CO2 is warming the earth, but it’s far more likely that something else is causing the warming.
No you are looking at in too simplistic a manner. You are taking a snippet of information and extrapolating without due consideration of the physics and chemistry involved in a warming process. You see that B follows A and since you are now being told that A causes B you cannot accept it. The thing to understand is that in the past it was actually more B -> A+C & A + B -> D, where D>>C, where B is an initial warming, B is the release of CO2, C is the warming sometime after B and D is the final level of warming. The issue of relevance is that this warming does not seem to be following the same pattern as the past warmings. Until new data emerges to suggest that the warming at this time actually preceded the CO2 release the logical conclusion is that these things are not the same. Your logic does not follow through; I’ll try to explain.

We do indeed have plenty of evidence that CO2 levels increase _after_ a warming cycle has begun. However,It does _not_ anti-correlate with the warming; i.e. it is not the case that the warming decreases as the CO2 increases - that would suggest that CO2 has no effect on warming, which I think you seem to be getting at.
Note that the lag in CO2 occurs after about 1/6 of the total warming, so the vast bulk of the time of warming occurs with elevated CO2 and it is well documented that CO2 acts to trap heat - unless you are disputing that. Our best understanding of the process is that a feedback occurs. Warming begins, CO2 is released, the warming increases.

Now you are saying because one thing has been seen to happen at all other times it must be the case the same thing is happening now. That assumes that in each case all things are equal, except that initial conditions have now changed; in the past the most likely source of CO2 was from the deep ocean. We know that now the source is _not_ the ocean we can identify where the source is and we can quantify it.

Your statement that ’it’s far more likely that something else is causing the warming’ just simply does not follow. It would if CO2 was not increasing at the same time as the current warming (no 800 year lag here). The simplified science in this case is that CO2 acts to trap heat input to a system, if you increase CO2 and keep the input equal you increase the trapped heat. Now it could well be that something else is contributing to the warming, for example if the input increases, but that does not stop the CO2 effect from working and making the effects of any potential increase in input worse.


I don’t think I have done a great job of explaining it here but I hope you see what I am getting at.





Written By: kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
James E. Fish,
At the risk of sounding arsey, I would just point out that this:
without giving sceptics any chance to reply
rings a little hollow considering the number of TV shows, radio stories, newspaper articles and of course blogs I have seen promoting the skeptic point of view.
Not to mention the back-and-forth I have seen in the scientific literature. One thing that irks me when I hear some folk complain about how they cannot get their work published because it was rejected by the journal is how many folk accept the premise that it is the result of a conspiracy and crushing dissent. very few ever stop to think, well maybe its because the analysis was wrong or the science was shaky. It seems to be hardwired into the human brain to look for the more conspiratorial angle rather than the simplest answer. This holds for so many other facets of life as well (e.g. the election was rigged, etc).

Also:
Human emissions of greenhouse gas is a tiny percentage of total greenhouse emissions. When biomass rotting produces an estimated three hundred gigatons of CO2 compared with 1.2 gigatons produced by humans, I tend to become skeptical.
Question: do you think that biomass release is not factored into the calculations?

Written By: kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
do you think that biomass release is not factored into the calculations?
I would hope so. I was pointing out the tiny percentage of CO2 caused by humans compared by the huge percentage given off by biomass. One third of one percent seems small to be a causation.
I would just point out that this:"without giving sceptics any chance to reply"rings a little hollow considering the number of TV shows, radio stories, newspaper articles and of course blogs I have seen promoting the skeptic point of view.
While I was being a little snarky, I think you will agree the MSM treats skeptics as if they are “odd fellows” with strange views. Not that this matters. Industry has seen “Green” in Global Warming, and Government has accepted the theory of human causation, and is planning to spend Billions to alleviate what is likely a normal cycle, unaffected by humans.

Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
James,

Don’t get lost in the concept of ’small numbers means small effects’. It’s a false premise. Look at when I discussed the effects of very small things (such as ozone or the ionosphere). Essentially you are arguing that since something is small it is stupid to consider that it can have a big effect on something.
One third of one percent seems small to be a causation.
And what tells you this? Gut feeling that it shouldn’t be a cause, or have you done the maths? I don’t mean to be snarky, but I am trying to make a point.

Plus we are talking about increases above a base level. If that is included in the calculations then that has answered your question- clearly it does have an effect. If you include it in the calculations and remove the additional tiny input then do we see a somewhat steady state or do we see a warming? Look to the results of the models to tell you.

Also the biomass argument itself is a bit of a red herring since I think you are essentially talking about the carbon cycle (or am I misunderstanding) in which the CO2 produced through rotting vegetation is then taken up again through the natural system (unless the system changes on timescales shorter than the cycle). Of course if you take a system and add extra CO2 that had been sequestered from the cycle the the natural response is to expect a heating to take effect - that heating can then affect the carbon cycle which can result in additional CO2 remaining free in the atmosphere causing a feedback which increases the heating.


Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
Don’t get lost in the concept of ’small numbers means small effects’.
I try not to, a feather can tip a balance. I am just not sure the ecological balance is that sensitive. I am not saying humans can’t be the cause of current global warming, I just don’t think there is enough evidence to take the steps deemed necessary by it’s supporters. A question this politicalized demands great study before we commit to drastic changes in human lifestyle.

Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
Look to the results of the models to tell you
Models are as good as their assumptions, or in simple terms, guesses. I am not aware of any climate models that have been able to replicate the known past, let alone the future. You can tweak a simulation so it will give you exactly the results you are looking for. This is a perfect device for those with a political agenda.

Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://

Interesting comment on an archaeologist’s blog that provides a much needed reality check in this discussion
if we look at the geological record, we see that the climate changes of the last 1000 years — both warmer and colder, wetter and drier — are more radical than most anything the global warming alarmists are predicting. Look at the last 15,000 years and you’ve got an ice age with a mile-deep sheet of ice covering most of North America north of the 40th parallel, and a millenium-long drought that had open blowing sand extending from western Wyoming to central Nebraska. None of that climate change can be realistically attributed to anthropogenic causes.

When I first heard the discussion on Global Warming I was puzzled over the controversy. It was obvious that climate change has been happening long before man arrived on the scene.

Over the years global warming has become increasingly popular with some political advocates. These advocates have been using global warming like a hammer to bang away for their desired political policies. This is the main reason global warming has become such a controversial topic.

Unfortunately, the actions the political advocates want to take are likely to seriously degrade our ability to respond to the next episode of real, non-anthropogenic climate change, or other real (for example meteor strike, volcanic eruption, pandemic, etc.) disaster that might strike the human population.

A relevant quote from the blog linked to at the start of this comment
We had better start figuring out how to live with climate changes more severe than anything found in the global warmers’ wildest dreams, or a major part of the human population is doomed.

We need to apply a whole lot more science and a whole lot less hype and tripe to this situation.


Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
kav,

I browsed over to your blog, found it to be well written with a nice tone. I have a few comments on some things you said over there and think they apply to this comment thread. Your material is in block quotes.
This is no bad thing, but one thing I have learned from debating climate change online is that if you are talking to a doubter (for want of a better word) it is impossible to persuade them otherwise. For many it is a political issue, right versus left, and it is impossible to see outside of the dogmatic and partisan field of view.

Either way online debate is pretty much pointless,
especially when the media and politicians undermine the science by reducing important findings to soundbites that overstress and overreach the originating science.
The empahsis in that quote was put there by me. That quote neatly sums up the issue scientists like yourself face when dealing with the general public. The public has not become aware of global warming by reading neutral peer reviewed research articles. They were made aware of global warming by political advocates of global warming who use it and red hot rhetoric to push for policies they have been demanding for years. The science might be reasonable but it has gotten a lot of political advocate barnacles stuck to it.

Unfortunately, many of the policies the barnacles are advocating for are at best ineffective, and at worse lead to more environmental destruction.

A simple example is Global Warming - this phrase has been beaten to death because people have simplistic expectations: if the planet gets warmer on average then it must get hotter here in my home town! Now if someone like me tries to use the less loaded phrase ’climate change’ it gets mocked for trying to have it both ways.
Another example of how the political advocate barnacles that have stuck themselves to climate science make life difficult for climate scientists. Every time the weather got hotter or the hurricane activity increased in the gulf of mexico political advocates have used that as clear evidence that global warming is happening.

So to the general public sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If hot weather shows global warming is happening, obviously cold weather shows it is not.

If climate scientists want reasonable discussion on climate issues they must scrape off the advocate barnacles that have stuck themselves to climate science. That would help lead to a rational discussion on how to deal with the impacts of climate change. The most effective solution might be CO2 reductions or it might mitigation strategies.

This is the discussion that we need but can’t have because of the political advocates have hijacked the issue.

Written By: TJIT
URL: http://
If climate scientists want reasonable discussion on climate issues they must scrape off the advocate barnacles that have stuck themselves to climate science
I would feel better about the science if this were accomplished.

Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://

This is the discussion that we need but can’t have because of the political advocates have hijacked the issue.
I think many of them are really alarmed at what the next century holds and think they need to wake people up. Scientists I know, including a Republican who does work for the military, seem genuinely convinced that really bad things are going to be happening soon and the public has to start thinking about ’sustainability.’ To them it’s not about politics, it’s about getting people to pay attention to what science is discovering.


Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
To them it’s not about politics, it’s about getting people to pay attention to what science is discovering.
Scott,
It’s hard to pay attention to the scientists when they are surrounded by a forest of left-wing-nuts demonstrating for a multitude of causes, most of which are a turn off for average people. If it were not for the politicalization of the issue, the scientists would have more credibility with the average American. They face the old saw “Birds of a feather, flock together.”

Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
Dr. Erb, from this February:
Although I’m skeptical about the value of the Kyoto protocols, I’d sign on in part to pressure countries like China and India who ultimately could be punished if they don’t work to have cleaner development
I have no idea how he would propose to punish China or India. Now, a few posts before that he did say:
What to do about this is unclear; I am not promoting Kyoto.
So, he voted against it before he voted for it. It only needs to pass once.
Voting for a potentially extremely expensive policy you don’t think will have its’ intended effect, but might make China feel bad. Now that is politicizing an issue.





Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Dr. Erb, from this February:

Although I’m skeptical about the value of the Kyoto protocols, I’d sign on in part to pressure countries like China and India who ultimately could be punished if they don’t work to have cleaner development

I have no idea how he would propose to punish China or India. Now, a few posts before that he did say:

What to do about this is unclear; I am not promoting Kyoto.

So, he voted against it before he voted for it. It only needs to pass once.
Voting for a potentially extremely expensive policy you don’t think will have its’ intended effect, but might make China feel bad. Now that is politicizing an issue.
Hmmm, I said I was skeptical but would sign on, but I’m not promoting it. Do you really see a contradiction there? Yeah, I’d sign it because it seems to be the best path to some kind of cooperative agreement. But I’m not going to go out and promote it.

Also, it’s not to make China "feel bad," but it is potentially a path to real economic pressure on China (and other states who are industrializing). Also, I doubt Kyoto will be that expensive; it probably will yield economic benefits that outweigh any costs, especially given how watered down it became at Bonn and Morocco.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Scott;
You said it puts us on the path to a cooperative agreement. This version might be waterd down and less expensive, what do you expect of the final agreement? It doesn’t really matter if you’re skeptical or don’t try to push for it, once you agree to something that is supposed to have this much of an affect, you can’t go back later and say "Well, I didn’t think it would work anyway." Unless you’re John Kerry.


If there were actually economic benefits that liklely outweighed the short term costs, China would adopt those provisions unilaterally (look at the Three Gorges Dam). China’s all about the long-term.
If its economically risky to accept these provisions, then a watered down version will not put "real economic pressure" on China. Do you think that Kyoto would lead to a stronger body than the UN? Nobody wants Iran to have nukes, and we can barely get approval to put economic pressure on them. You might me able to get economic pressure on somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa,
because they are deperate to improve thier quality of life and are dependant on the outside world. But not a permanent member of the security council with as much of a base as they already have. The Chinese are modernizing to achieve their goal of being a super-power, not to get themselves out of the mud. (And they don’t care if several million in western China stay in the mud a while longer, they’ve been at this a long time)

Even if Kyoto worked, and led to a body that could put economic pressure on China, do you want the most powerful economic force on the planet to be a climate group with a zero year history of predicting the climate and a deeply vested interest in finding climate data to justify their existence?

Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Kav;
You are taking a snippet of information and extrapolating without due consideration of the physics and chemistry involved in a warming process. You see that B follows A and since you are now being told that A causes B you cannot accept it. The thing to understand is that in the past it was actually more B -> A+C & A + B -> D, where D>>C, where B is an initial warming, B is the release of CO2, C is the warming sometime after B and D is the final level of warming. The issue of relevance is that this warming does not seem to be following the same pattern as the past warmings.
I’m guessing A is the release of CO2. If A=>B, then A minus B is positive or zero. The temperature records do not agree with this.
If CO2 were a significant factor, the past data would already have shown it.
Lets assume that once CO2 levels got rolling, it was an equal factor with solar activity. After the solar activity has peaked, CO2 levels are still rising as shown in the past data. During the time that CO2 levels are rising and solar activity is falling, temperatures would remain stable until CO2 levels start to fall again. Instead temperatures fall with solar activity, without the pattern being distorted by the still rising CO2.

Both the past and present data agree with the following theory:
S->B->A and H-> A, where B is temperature rise due to solar activity, A is CO2 level and H is human industry. Solar activity leads to higher temperature (relatively quickly) and that leads to increased CO2 level (slowly). Human industry leads to increased CO2 levels (quickly). Increased solar activity plus human activity leads to the current trends.



Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Ted, Just a quick response. I’ll reply in more detail if and when I have the leisure.
I did cock up originally: A was the release in CO2. Also I think you misunderstand. That was a flowchart, not an equation or formula.

I did not specify what caused the warming and I urge caution in declaring solar variability - it could have been variability in the amount of solar power hitting the Earth due to orbital forcing rather than a variability within the Sun’s own output.

I am not so sure your last statement is fully supported by the data though I personally think solar forcing plays a part. I need to double check this.

Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
Kav;
Okay, we can dispense with the exact definition of S and leave it as something related to solar effects. I get the flowchart aspect, that’s why I also used arrows later on. I should have explained my equation better:
If the effect of CO2 (by the end of a warming cycle) is as large or greater than the effect of whatever started the warming to begin with, then when those two things act in opposition, temps should remain stable or continue to rise.

But in the 800 years after each solar effect peak (while CO2 is still on the rise), temperatures drop, so CO2 is not nearly as important as whatever caused the original warming. If temperatures during that time do not drop as fast as would be expected due to the drop in solar power reaching the Earth, then it is possible that CO2 is having a mild effect.

Written By: Ted
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools: Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment: