Who is Ian Plimer?

He is the man who took legal action against an “authority” who provided geological “proof” that Noah’s Arc settled on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.

Plimer lost on a technicality. In his efforts to protect the public from religious-based “science”, he lost his house.

Good luck Ian.

Science as genuine free enquiry is definitely apolitical.

The trouble is that most of the science that is done is sponsored by, and serves the interests of, those in power. The captains of industry who always do whatever it takes to serve their own short term interests. It is well known that most if not all of the climate change skeptics (rather true believers) are paid up apolgists for big business.

THE REAL POLITICAL CENSORSHIP HAS BEEN IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION

Dear Ian,

You're absolutely right about the ABC's screening of Durkin's mockumentary. It was a serious mistake to select a film packed with glaring factual errors for a panel discussion. Channel 4's decision to commission the film was mostly down to perceived obligation for "balance" and, conversely, a deliberate attempt to incite controversy. The ABC played the same ratings game.

Sadly, despite the removal of some of the most embarrassing pieces of the original 75-minute documentary (such as quoting Carl Wunsch out-of-context on ocean currents), many of the errors were retained in the 50-minute ABC version.

The panel discussion was indeed a farce. Commentators on both [political] sides of the debate had decent scientific points to make. The ABC could have done much better (though at greater expense) commissioning a skeptical Australian scientist like Prof. Bob Carter to present his own views -- Carter would not have made the mistakes made by the charlatan Durkin. As it was, Carter made some admirable points in defence of the indefensible: what a waste of talent.

It is not the case that "political interference" spoiled the debate; the whole thing was a joke from the start.

The real political censorship is in the other direction, and far more subtle than the TV panel-show circus we saw. The most recent IPCC report would have been far *more* alarmist without political interference, which removed all reference to positive feedbacks from the executive summary, and removed water vapour from the list of significant radiative forcing components -- making the report rather less credible unless you read the fine print.

http://www.meridian.org.uk/_PDFs/IPCC.pdf

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/10/the-real-climate-censorship/

Ian Plimer gives a concise evaluation of the current state of play in the heavily politicized area of climate science. I have to agree with everything he writes in this article.

"Science has no consensus, science is anarchistic as it submits to no authority, and the latest scientific view is only transitory. Science is apolitical, and when it has submitted to political pressure in the past, it has been at great human cost."
The scientific consensus lends no weight to the assertion that humans a largely responsible for global warming in the last century. The politicization of the science is indeed worrying and the human costs that may be borne out under it is yet to be seen. Lets hope for mankinds sake that the cost is not too high. Especially since the future of the science is far from certain and in fact is likely to be wrong. Time will tell.

"Plimer lost on a technicality. In his efforts to protect the public from religious-based “science”, he lost his house."
A man who is prepared to put his money where his mouth is. Few and far between.

xoddam yes there errors in TGGWS, some glaring, they were also there for all to see in the Hollywood horror "An Inconvenient Truth" yet barely a squeak was heard.

"a deliberate attempt to incite controversy"
Well it is a fairly controversial subject, far from settled.

"Carl Wunsch out-of-context"
He wasn't really...he still speaks out against silly notions like the Gulf Stream stopping.

"The most recent IPCC report would have been far *more* alarmist "...and scientifically wrong but don't let that stop you

"making the report rather less credible"
Hard to do.

Three cheers for Ian Pilmer.

The ABC and the hard-left goons posing as environmentalists are starting to look really silly and desperate.

This is a good thing. The pushier they get, the more even people who don't take much interest in anything get to see how foolish and wrong it is the blame humans and carbon emissions for climate change.

I am sure the author is thoroughly aware that the change in global temperatures over the past 150 years is more significant than the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period and and Roman Warm Period.

It would appear that both denial and assertions can be shrill.

That's all great about starbursts, volcanoes and continental drift. But in those time scales the Earth didn't have 6.5 billion people living on a knife edge. I would have thought that the example of the dinosaurs shows how it can all go wrong quickly.

Side note: what's with OLO and all the anti GW stories?

Ian Plimer’s temper tantrum resorts to schoolboy debating tactics with irrelevant data and Strawman accusations. If he does not like the zealots in the Global Warming movement, don’t read them. Instead, he should try reading the thousands of scientific papers from hundreds of different fields of science that all come to the same conclusion. One Strawman he creates is a picture of thousands of scientists sitting around in a big convention, feeding in all their data into the one computer model which spits out a result — and the scientists all said “Amen”. Plimer, this schoolboy tactic needs a schoolboy reply. “As if”.

The opposite is true. The very skepticism and rational debate he laments are actually alive and well in the scientific community. Every independent scientist or university is out to make a name for themselves. They are a fiercely independent mob who want nothing more than to disprove a current paradigm and go down in the history books, or at least win a grant.

The media are the only ones that keep quoting the sheer number of GW scientists. The "Average Aussie” does not have time to sift through all the complex arguments, so this is merely to demonstrate to them that GW is now mainstream science.

The scientists themselves are sceptically studying their own data, not "counting colleagues".

http://tinyurl.com/2fo2ju

The next Strawman he creates is the “forgotten data” argument. He quotes mountain building as if that is going to affect climate change over the last few hundred years! ;-) We’re not fooled Plimer — you are quoting something that occurs over millions of years, not the last few centuries. Climatologists such as Tim Flannery go into continental drift, Milancovitch cycles (the earth’s wobble), cosmic rays, volcanoes, all of these causes and climate effects over millions of years. But we are talking about when the climate story narrows into the last few thousand years. Implying these items are forgotten is an outright lie. Maybe Plimer should start at the beginning and read “The Weather Makers” before spewing out such nonsense.

Plimer’s creativity: 8/10
Accuracy 1/10

Xoddam, Monbiot is just a petite fart who believes he is a hurricane. To put it another way as some bloke has said, ... when it comes to changing climate, human CO2 emissions represent but a fart in a hurricane.

It is also such a ridiculous notion when you consider that carbon creates a greening and healthy environment. If there is any one thing that is known about carbon dioxide and global change with any certainty it is that more CO2 in the air substantially enhances the growth of plants as well as the efficiency with which they utilize water. i.e. When we think of all the extra and free fertiliser we should be out there working with the goods.

As I have said previously, one of the glaring oversights with these new high priests of humans causing global warming is an assumption that our largest plasma discharge formation the sun doesn't do anything. One may remark, just how terribly wrong can one really be?

Just as we should be out there planting the greening so should we be out there harvesting sunnyboy's ions and electrons which we call plasma. However, whilst we persist with this old nuclear fusion model of sunnyboy there will also persist a bunch of problems associated with it. (Very difficult because the high priests of astro-science CONTROL all their invented fictional ideas of a big bang expanding universe. Similarly, climate CONTROL is our new religion and just as fictional.)

And people talk about the theology of religion being divided! Seems to me that the heart of man is just as deceitful in religion, science, athieism, medical and every other human endeavour. Thank God for sending the One who could be relied upon and trusted. Global warming is becoming more hilarous as the days go by.

re:
"Science has no consensus, science is anarchistic as it submits to no authority, and the latest scientific view is only transitory. Science is apolitical, and when it has submitted to political pressure in the past, it has been at great human cost."

Ignoring the epic attributes of Big-S Science, I wonder about the idea that the latest scientific view is only transitory. True, no doubt, from a geological perspective, but on a shorter timeframe, we have Newton's Laws:

A brief and pertinent historical summary from Wikipedia:

"Newton first gave his laws in the first volume of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687 and, using the mathematical tools of his newly developed calculus, proved many results concerning the motion of idealised particles. In the third volume, he showed how, combined with his law of universal gravitation, his laws of motion explained the motion of the planets and the Laws of Kepler. Not until 1916 and Albert Einstein's theory of relativity did anyone improve upon Newton's model of the motions of the planets."

http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtons_Laws_of_Motion

To the best of my knowledge, Newton's Laws hold up pretty well, 320 years later, in our classrooms and our day to day driving experiences. So what, exactly, does the learned gentleman mean by "the latest scientific view is only transitory"? Newton's views were once "the latest", were they not?

I would hope for a bit more rigor and a lot less rant from a recognised expert and educator. I hope The Age published a good selection of letters on Professor Plimer's twaddle.

Runner, I'm a Christian and yet maintain that modern science is quite clear on human caused Global Warming. Try to stay on topic, some would call your post "trolling".

I'm surprised Kieran didn't quote the other 26 myths of Climate change skeptics while he was at it. Just quoting Durkin's "The sun did it" hypothesis again does not validate his argument. Here are those myths, as documented by New Scientist.

• Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

• We can't do anything about climate change

• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

• Chaotic systems are not predictable

• We can't trust computer models of climate

• They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

• It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

• It's too cold where I live - warming will be great

• Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

• It’s all down to cosmic rays

• CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

• The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

• Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

• The oceans are cooling

• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

• It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

• We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

• Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

• Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

• Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell

• Mars and Pluto are warming too

• Many leading scientists question climate change

• It's all a conspiracy

• Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming

• Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

• Polar bear numbers are increasing

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

"But in those time scales the Earth didn't have 6.5 billion people living on a knife edge"
Always thought people from Tassie were living like there was no tomorrow.

"I would have thought that the example of the dinosaurs shows how it can all go wrong quickly."
Probably not much anyone could do about meteorites slamming into the earth or super volcanoes, you may be being a little unfair on the dinosaurs.

"Instead, he should try reading the thousands of scientific papers from hundreds of different fields of science that all come to the same conclusion."
Obviously you haven't read them either.

"Climatologists such as Tim Flannery"
Flummery is not a climatologist. He holds bachelor degrees in English (where he gets his creative writing skills from) and Earth Science (otherwise known as a geologist oooh the same a Plimer), a doctorate in Palaeontology (still not climatology)

"Maybe Plimer should start at the beginning and read “The Weather Makers” before spewing out such nonsense. "
Then he'd really know his nonsense.

"So what, exactly, does the learned gentleman mean by "the latest scientific view is only transitory"?"
I think he means the theory of AGW.

"Runner, I'm a Christian and yet maintain that modern science is quite clear on human caused Global Warming. "
Oh yer....God did it?

New Scientist just hasn't been the same since Nigel Calder left.

For more information on the "swindle":
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds
http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/

I find it comical that dogmatists (sceptics is far too generous a title) refer to "uncertainties" that have long since been put to bed and attempt to claim the high moral ground. Science is indeed dynamic and referring to an old view of science is not meritorious.

I found the panel discussion fascinating when even after having their opinion presented (note the qualifier that it was broadcast as opinion and NOT documentary) the dogmatists were still unable to get a credible toehold in the debate. Every "point" was clearly and articulately debunked. I also think it was quite telling that many who supported the dogmatists were making incredible half baked and ill-conceived conspiracy theories about eugenics and how the environment movement is "out to kill Africa".

Tragic really but hardly inspiring enough to invest in beachfront real estate.

Dear Ian

I hope you take time from your schedule to read these comments and maybe reply to them. I think the malfunction lies with the problem of linear thinking and the linear demands that we humans place on our non-linear world.

Example: Thoughtless water usage. As water levels fall due to increasing demand, evaporation of the remainder becomes more of a problem. At the same time our pollutants which once were dilute, are becoming more concentrated in the remaining water even as it becomes more precious. Thus we accellerate towards the end-point.

Question: Under what level of stored and artesian water should we have drawn the line? (30%? 50%? 70%?) How long ago should we have addressed the problem? (10 years? 30 years? 60 years?) Would anyone have listened? Could you have convinced a merchant banker, a treasurer or a prime minister?

All these things ARE perfectly measurable with the aid of yardstick and rear-view mirror, but our predictive abilities are limited by our insistence on clinging to our comfortable world-view. Thus we may hit the buffers, because we have devoted the other 90% of our brain power to indulging in the man-made myth of the economy.

One day, this may be known as the white man's dreaming.

Gore is guilty of daring to suggest that our world-view is no longer tenable (no matter his own "fortunate" life, so far). Some of us think that he was too passionate, while others think he was not passionate enough.

We have to remove the pollution of excessive self-indulgence from the stream of human consciousness. Nothing can happen until we change the way that money works.

As an example, check out the Prime Minister's water scheme for elements of water privatisation. Money is a hell of a pollutant where water is concerned.

So if you smarty scientific side-kickers are right - then all this craze about getting the Business Mafia into carbon trading is really just a racket for them to keep on making zillions whatever way the GW cookie crumbles?

Might be thankful that I'll be out of this cheating global rat-race in a year or two, out in the nether somewhere with my dear dead wife.

Cheers - BB

Oh don't go just yet Bushy.

- here, I'll put the kettle on -

:)

EclipseNow is just hilarious. He controls the sun just like so many who do not believe the sun is a star because you cannot see it at night. Out of sight equals out of mind. During that "debate" following the Durkin doco, I believe David Karoly said something similar.

Just love these greenhousers who are off their face with CO2 original sin, and who ignore anything and everything outside the troposphere. Lovelock is a good example .... (and like thatcher the rodent will simply take advantage of people's stoooopidity.)

Frankly, I agree with Ian's thoughts about science and particularly that we should be seriously embarrassed with the manner in which our national broadcaster handled this doco. It points to weak people, a weak media and an outcome where science faces a diminishing role in public policy.

ps Bushy, I enjoy reading your posts ..... so hang around old boy.

Global warming? Climate change?


Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the
Earth's temperature.

In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.

The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Canada

Your readers might be interested in these websites.

Please paste these links in your browser.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288195,00.html

http://www.abc.net.au/westqld/stories/s1971899.htm?backyard

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=&IsTextOnly=True

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/opinion/06fri1.html?hp

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_article=1

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070705/greenland_dna_070705/20070705?hub=SciTech

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289149,00.html

You've clearly done your homework snowbird. Did you include a link to RealClimate's article on cosmic rays? Aussies may note our very own Senator Nick Minchin is a cosmic ray enthusiast and has written an official memo to that effect. Which of course makes it OK to be part of the Coal-ition government.

The next step is to get rid of all those pesky greenhouses used by farmers to ripen tomatoes. Just zap the buggers with cosmic rays.

Thanks, Chris and Kieren, helps to give the old boy a lift. Gets lonely at times, though I have the wife's own little dog to talk to. The family has talked me into Foxtel. Still don't like foxy Murdoch, but will say his contiuous Country Music session is good. Reminds me when I used to try and sing - When it's Springtime in the Rockies - chasing cattle during the Great Depression. Now I try to sing How much is that dog in the window? to Amber the dog.

Was supposed to previously sit for a scholarship early in the Depression, but with the old man's persuasion sort of chose to work on the property. Don't really regret it though, looking back, though life in the army later probably helped to liven things up.

Cheers - BB

Ah, dear old ian pilmer, you do make me laugh.
Next thing you'll be telling us about the big hippy-scientific conspiracy to have us all living in caves is funded by those evil global-mega-environmental groups, and that the do-gooder corporate think-tanks are only trying to warn us and save the consumerist utopia!

I shudder to think how many people buy this line of irrational, motive-less argument as an excuse to do nothing.

Our real problem is that "Global Warming" caused by CO2 is now the child of the far left who want to use it to destroy the Capitalist's System and impose their new world order.This is why they are so vehmently protective of their theory presented as fact.Anyone who deviates from their view is a heretic who must be shouted down.In the old days this mentality would have Plimer stoned to death for blasphamy.

Yes the Global Warming religion is stifling rational debate about the causes and possible consequences.We are not even sure if this is just a natural cycle.So let the real rational debate begin.

"The best way to understand climate is to critically and sceptically evaluate the evidence presented to us over a very long period of time by the heavens and the Earth beneath our feet."

Very true Ian, most scientists do this by peer review in scientific journals, conferences, workshops and the like.

You may not like what your peers in the scientific community have said Ian, but resorting to "dumbing down" (quoted) in the media, on obscure blog spots, and forums like this reeks of "sour grapes".

You have a contribution to make, so please GET OVER IT and GET ON WITH IT.

Taswegian, you're not the only one who has noticed.
Do the numbers, OLO slams the so called "warmers". Hey ed, how about a more balanced view, a claim taken from the "deniers" camp. OLO is turning into a "deniers" self-admiration society.

"...review in scientific journals, conferences, workshops and the like." is just another way of saying "consensus".

It has been said a thousand times I know, but scepticisms is not 'denialism' or dogmatism - that's basic semantics and logic.
The use of the coined word 'denialist' smacks of 'Stalinist language' in the same way as the patently undemocratic regime of North Korea describes itself as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Taswegian and Eclipse Now refer to GW - short hand for global warming.
Whether the Earth's climate is warming, constant or cooling is a matter of evidence and scientists can argue about the validity of that evidence.
But global warming entirely or mainly due to human activity, at this stage, is clearly highly speculative.

A recurring theme here is that this subject should be left to the 'high priests', the scientists (presumably climate scientists).
On the contrary, everyone will be affected by the outcome of this debate and have a perfect right to comment.

Who cares about all this hand-wringing? All those folk in NSW/Victoria who fear AGW can move to Qld/the NT for a few years and experience it first hand. You may be surprised at how easily you adapt to sudden and significant (and catastrophic) permanent "climate change". Those wishing to sample the opposite (hey Dave from Darwin, have I got a deal for you!)will quickly understand why global Cooling seemed so alarming in the 70s. Yawn....

If the University of Adelaide were to establish a chair embracing the field of zealotry and disinformation, Ian would a prime candidate to fill it.

The article is peppered with instances of the very stuff he rails against.

Just one of the many is the statement:
“The atmospheric carbon dioxide content in the past has been hundreds to thousands of times the current figure and the world did not end. Quite the contrary - life thrived”.
To say that life thrived through it all is, to put the kindest spin on it, disingenuous: so similar to that of a particular Architect some years back conning the public for funding of an “Archaeology” dig on Mount Arrarat.
Life strived and generally expired, rather than thrived, during those changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Is Ian now suggesting that the good Lord did, after all, make life compatible with those great changes, rather than be forced to extinction and be replaced by new species evolving to cope with them?

Bushbred, congrats on drawing into comment, on this particular article by an economic geologist, your days of singing “When it’s Springtime in the Rockies”.
Perhaps even better, for such an out-of-reality blog, might be “In the Big Rock Candy Mountains, where you never change your socks; and little streams of alcohol come trickling down the rocks.

You've got to admire Ian Plimer. I remember seeing the documentary about him taking on the creationists and losing nearly everything. There's no doubt he is a tough character.

However, him accusing anyone of being a zealot is hilarious. I'd recommend everyone read his book "Telling Lies for God". Even though I agreed with its point of view, I thought it the most agressive, over-the-top, furious attack on the creationists that I've ever read. There are times when he becomes almost incoherent, almost hysterical, with rage.

Consequently, I don't think accusations from Ian Plimer of anyone being a 'zealot' can be taken terribly seriously. 'Pot calling the kettle black' comes to mind.

snowbird,

Svensmark's research was related to the possible role of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) in climate change. His theory is that GCRs penetrating the Earth's atmosphere create ions that attract water vapor molecules resulting in the formation of clouds. It goes on that if the Sun is creating a high level of activity, its magnetic field prevents large amounts of these GCRs from reaching Earth, reducing its cloud cover, leading to global warming.

The role of cloud cover in global warming is one of the most debated in the field, as clouds can contribute to both warming and cooling by preventing radiated heat from escaping back to space (warming) and reflecting light before it reaches the Earth's surface (cooling).

Svensmark's research and conclusions have been countered by a number of climate scientists, taking issue with his methods and noting that the related cloud cover fluctuation could be caused by a number of other factors. In any case, they have found the role of GCRs in climate change to be quite small.

Here are some references on the subject...

Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate (Nov 29, 2002)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5599/1732

Cosmic Rays Are Not the Cause of Climate Change, Scientists Say (Jan 21, 2004)
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0405.html

Possible satellite perspective effects on the reported correlations between solar activity and clouds (Jul 31, 2004)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021167.shtml

Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays (Dec 6, 2004)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42

Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin (Oct 16, 2006)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

Cosmic Rays and Global Warming (Jun 28, 2007)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf

You are absolutely right AdmiralVS, “everyone will be affected by the outcome of this “debate” and have (sic) a perfect right to comment”.

However, they will be more affected by the outcome of the decisions of the policy makers in dealing with the issues raised by the scientists – not the science itself.

This is where you, I and everyone can contribute more to the outcome. For example:

APEC is in Sydney in early September, this is going to be big, in more ways than one – and Howard still might pull a rabbit out of the hat, and Bush might still undermine the UN, yet again.

An even bigger debate will be in Bali in December, the UNFCCC meeting that wants to move the world ‘post-Kyoto.’

Can we all agree that climate science is very complex and can be very technical?

If yes, then who are we (who are not experts and haven’t devoted years of our life to the study of climate) to suggest we know more than the scientists themselves?

If we don’t understand the science but want to know more, is it not better to go and learn at websites devoted to it, rather here on some obscure forum. If you want to ‘debate’ the science, those forums are much better, and your not limited to word counts.

“Whether the Earth's climate is warming, constant or cooling is a matter of evidence and scientists can argue about the validity of that evidence.” I agree Admiral.

I take the Admiral’s point about semantics. Maybe he is a sceptic, not in the scientific sense of course.

But what of Plimer’s use of term 'global warming zealots', or others’ use of the term “high priests”? Maybe we should all pull our heads in and show some kind of respect.

Scientists have egos, most people do - but the vast majority won't spruik scientific doctrine from the pulpit like Carter and Plimer do, and yes, even James Hansen.

There is not a scientific argument that has been put forth to date by the anthropogenic global warming skeptic crowd that hasn't already been debated and debunked.

It's not the Sun.
It's not galactic cosmic rays.
It's not changing ocean currents.
It's not natural variations.
No, volcanoes do not emit more CO2 than mankind.
Yes, Mars is warming for completely different reasons.
Things will not be "better" when it's warmer.
No, the oceans and plants will not absorb all of the extra CO2.
No, the upper atmosphere is not warming at a slower rate than the lower atmosphere.
Carbon reductions do not equate with fiscal bankruptcy.
Yes, a small group of scientists in the 70's talked about global cooling, and that's exactly what it was, a small group of scientists.
Weather is NOT the same as climate.
It's not some socialist global conspiracy.
It's not about politics.
It's not about Al Gore.
It's not about the financial success or failure of Live Earth.
It's not about talk radio.
It's not about hypocritical Hollywood elitists.

It's about the science. And the science has been clear for quite a while, regardless of the periodic straw man arguments thrown out by the "skeptic" crowd intended to sow confusion.

As for the "Swindle", here are a few more links on that subject...

Channel 4 : Great Global Warming Swindle
http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820

Deconstructing Channel 4's Great Global Warming Swindle
http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html

C4’s debate on global warming boils over
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1517515.ece

Video: ABC Australia's Tony Jones Dissects, Debunks Martin Durkin
http://www.desmogblog.com/video-abc-australias-tony-jones-dissects-debunks-martin-durkin

Here's news of Professor Ian Plimer featuring at the National Party Conference in Brisbane this week.

see:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Climate-sceptic-to-address-Nats-Qld-meet/2007/07/23/1185043002185.html

How do I reconcile the above news with The Prof's Grand Pronunciamento?

"Science has no consensus, science is anarchistic as it submits to no authority, and the latest scientific view is only transitory. Science is apolitical, and when it has submitted to political pressure in the past, it has been at great human cost."

Keeping science safe from politics, no doubt - but what's the National Party attitude toward anarchists?

Kieran, Arjay and ilk… there’s been plenty of vitriol and name calling, but no further debate on the science put forward.

So let’s talk about the sun-as-single-climate-driver theory shall we?

The amount of sun the earth receives is an enormous driver of climate, but over vast 100 thousand year time frames. Yet it’s not the sun that changes, it’s us. The earth “wobbles”, changing the angle that sunlight hits us. Milancovitch studied these wobbles decades ago.

Milancovitch wobbles in the earth’s angle relative to the sun drove those ice ages Al Gore presented in his graph of 600 thousand years. Changes in sunlight received triggering the temperature change first. 500 odd years later, the CO2 rose or fell. So the temperature changed first, then the Co2. Global Warming disproved?

No because:-
1. Global warming theory never relied on that graph in the first place. It just illustrates that we human beings have pumped CO2 levels higher than any natural variation over the last million years.
2. Even though the Milancovitch wobbles reduced the sunlight received, this does not account for the MASSIVE changes in temperature that eventually occurred. Co2 interacted with changes in ice cover and other feedback mechanisms to massively amplify the effects.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

In other words the million year old ice-core samples DO prove that CO2 is a powerful climate driver by amplifying other effects, even though the temperature changed first IN THAT CASE.

Climate science is really complex. It’s the sum total of a whole host of interacting forcings, feedback mechanisms, geology, continental drift, ocean activity, volcanic activity, Milancovitch cycles, sulfur-particulate induced global DIMMING (masking warming trends for the period after WW2), gases, and yes even solar activity. Any summary theory that tries to ignore all of these and focuses on one simple forcing driving climate is bound to be wrong. Example: Your precious “solar-only” forcing theory was blown out of the water by Tony Jones showing the sun’s activity and global temperatures diverging immensely in the last few years.

"Milancovitch wobbles in the earth’s angle relative to the sun"
I think you will find it's Milankovitch.

"Yet it’s not the sun that changes, it’s us."
I think you will find that the sun does change, not just us. Very Earth centric of you.

"Co2 interacted with changes in ice cover and other feedback mechanisms to massively amplify the effects."
If CO2 is such a massive amplifier of temperature compared with the sun why didn't the earth go into a runaway greenhouse. Maybe because it was swamped by a much greater forcing ie. the sun's decreasing effect as a result of an orbital wobble. In fact the ice cores reveal that the temperature dropped 800 - 1000 years before CO2 started to drop. So much for its massive amplifying effect.

"Climate science is really complex."
Yes you really shouldn't be dabbling, a little knowledge is often more dangerous than none.

"Any summary theory that tries to ignore all of these and focuses on one simple forcing driving climate is bound to be wrong."
Oh you mean like CO2 caused gloabl warming...wrong!

"Your precious “solar-only” forcing theory was blown out of the water by Tony Jones showing the sun’s activity and global temperatures diverging immensely in the last few years."
Heaven help us, Tony Jones the "Journalist" has dismissed all of the solar physicist's theories. They better start looking for new jobs, maybe the ABC? Except they're not up to Tony Jones' level of scientific understanding.
Divergence may be a lag effect of 10-20 years. Might explain why the global temperature stopped rising post 2000.

Alzo, if you buy the single-forcing model we call "The Sun did it!", can you please explain something?

If Durkin and his ilk are allowed to point at Co2 increasing post WW2 while temperatures decreased — and NOT LISTEN to the fact that Global Dimming was involved — then why on earth do you think we are going to listen to your explanation that — "Divergence may be a lag effect of 10-20 years"?

(I'm glad you accept the glaring fact that global temperature stopped rising post 2000).

Where's your proof? Where's the paper that solar changes wait 1 to 2 decades before showing up? Come on Alzo... Durkin was at such pains to show how IMMEDIATELY solar MATCHED temperatures — through his highly selective use of the solar forcings graphs.
(For more on Solar forcings try the ABC real player at...)
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/player_launch.pl?s=rn/scienceshow&d=rn/scienceshow/audio&r=ssw_14072007_2856.ram&w=ssw_14072007_28M.asx&t=Saturday%2014%20July%202007&p=1

On the other hand, REAL climatologists admit all sorts of forcings. Yes there are the TINY changes in solar activity over it's 11 year cycle, even smaller forcings changes over it's 20 to 30 year cycles. Then of course there's the massive forcings such as Milankovitch cycles which many papers have analyzed and found wanting as a total explanation of the final temperature differential. Check this out...

"At the 100,000-year period, atmospheric carbon dioxide, Vostok air temperature, and deep-water temperature are in phase with orbital eccentricity, whereas ice volume lags these three variables. Hence, the 100,000-year cycle does not arise from ice sheet dynamics; instead, it is probably the response of the global carbon cycle that generates the eccentricity signal by causing changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5486/1897

So Alzo, I'm waiting on the solar lag papers please. ;-)

Posted by davsab, Thursday, 26 July 2007 11:33:46 PM:
"But what of Plimer’s (Ian Plimer emeritus professor of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne and professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide) use of term 'global warming zealots', or others’ use of the term “high priests”? Maybe we should all pull our heads in and show some kind of respect."
Quite.

Many like Eclipse Now are suggesting that CO2 is just a catalyst that amplifies the real forces of Global warming.

My questions are these;What are the real forces that change our climate?How does this CO2 catalyst influence them?Why does the concentration of the catalyst always lag behind mean world temperatures in the past and now have an immediate influence in the present?

Admiral von Schneider, I was prepared to engage with you on some issues of contention, Plimer’s article in general and climate change policy in particular.

Your riposte suggests you are incapable, for this I am sorry.

What is it with you Denialist zealots? What is your problem? Every reputable climate scientist in the world tells us we have a problem. Perhaps we might actually have a problem.

When I read hysterics like Ian Plimer, opportunists like Alex Deane and controversialists like Martin Durkin I wonder to myself, what would it be like if Quantum Dynamics suddenly became an area of concern? I can imagine clapped out geologists like Ian Plimer telling us that the gamma radiation levels on the Earth's surface have changed a great deal over history, and this sudden influx of deadly radiation is nothing unusual. I can imagine lawyers like Alex Deane telling us of his doubts about Dirac's uncertainty principle. Perhaps we might see John Howard telling us he is a photon realist, who doesn't think Einstein's theory of the photo-electric effect is the whole story. But most of all I imagine Martin Durkin telling us how Schrodinger's wave equations are lies, told to us to get more funding for Quantum physicists. For Christ's sake...

And what is going on with On Line Opinion? Why all the denialist articles? I'm sick of it being a site where denialists cluck in sympathy with each other over those silly green-housers. One more denialist article and I'm going to remove you from my 'favourites' list.

Phil01.Just address the simple questions I have posed,instead of this "Manifest Destiny" of a Global Catastrophy dished up to us as an environmental reality.

I defy any scientist or global warming zealot to address the questions I've posed in regards CO2 being the catalyst that instigates our planetary demise. If CO2 be the catalyst which spawns this cataclysmic end,then what are the determinators of the Global Warming Church that assumes "fait accompli"?

Phil01, I empathise with you but it is only 98.5% of reputable climate scientists that think we have a problem – thankfully the world’s leaders are into risk management!

Arjay comes across as someone who still refuses to understand the science.

They should go to a genuine climate science web-site (not "On Line Opinion") and sprout their questions there?

Global climate is determined by the radiation balance of the planet. There are three fundamental ways the Earth’s radiation balance can change, causing a climate change:

1) changing the incoming solar radiation (e.g., by changes in the Earth’s orbit or in the Sun itself),

2) changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (this fraction is called the albedo – it can be changed by cloud cover, aerosols or land cover),

3) altering the long-wave energy radiated back to space (e.g., by changes in CO2-e concentrations, increasingly like what is happening now).

ALL of these factors play a role in climate change.

Coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes in the Earth's orbit - the so-called Milankovitch cycling. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years.

Again, DO NOT make the mistake of assuming that these warmings and coolings must have a single cause. It is well known that multiple factors are involved, including the change in planetary albedo, change in nitrous oxide concentration, change in methane concentration, and change in CO2 concentration, GET IT.

The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. The lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback.

Nice summary of forcings.

Now Arjay, I did not say that CO2 is “just” an amplifier.
What I was trying to say is that all things being equal, more CO2 means higher temperatures. Sometimes other forcings will push in different directions, such as when we burnt dirty coal after WW2 and released stacks of Sulfur into the atmosphere, which increased Global Dimming and blocked out some of the sunlight. This led to a decrease in temperatures even though the CO2 was rising. The “Dimming” forcing was stronger than the CO2 forcing for a time. In the same way, sometimes Volcanoes release more “Dimming” factors and drive down temperatures for a while, or over longer periods of time, when the atmosphere has cleaned up but there’s still CO2 build up from the last big boom, then climate can see-saw back up again.

160 million years ago the oil formation period during the Jurassic had so much CO2 from an excessively busy Volcanic period that we entered a “Super-Greenhouse” that killed the oceans. Excessive tropical storms of acid rain burnt and washed excess NPK off the land, and over-fertilized the top layers of the ocean. Meanwhile, the bottom layers of the ocean went anoxic — no oxygen, due to there being no ice at the poles. (No icy poles = no oceanic circulation and no oxygen pumping down deep = dead ocean = species extinction on a massive scale.)

Co2 from an incredibly volcanic era (far more than our own) drove all that.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

However, CO2 is not always the bad guy. It once saved life on earth from being extinguished by a super-freeze. Check out the Snowball earth theory!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_earth

Global Warming is not the end of the world or the end of humanity. The challenge is not to survive but to THRIVE. This is a self-induced problem that we can fix. But it does represent a profound challenge to our increasingly globalized and interdependent economy. People like Durkin do not help us thrive by spreading this misinformation.

“Durkin is jerkin his gherkin.”*

*For this quote, see letters at…
http://tinyurl.com/2f3jhe

Davsab said:
“The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. The lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback.”

No scientist worthy of credibility can argue with that. And I doubt that Ian Plimer would try to refute the science bound up in it. Yet he tried to bolster his blog with the ridiculous: “life thrived” during these periods of traumatic change. These were periods when CO2 concentration changed in matching sequence. Periods when species, not just individuals, died out in their millions.
Yes, some life survived them, and later thrived after evolving to suit the changed environments. Algae has certainly hung in there – evidenced as 3 billion year old fossil Stromatolites at “North Pole” in W.A. to the now-living Stromatolites in Shark Bay.
But, our own species are unlikely survivors - having been pushing beyond sustainable limits for ten thousand years – the whole duration of most benign climate it has ever experienced. It now pushes the limits far more than before.
What zealous purpose does Ian Plimer have in peddling nonsense – that life has bridged big changes over eons of geologic time (by species evolution he does not say), and therefore Homo sapiens has no need to worry?
I wish he would give us a break. I would like my mob to be able to hang in there comfortably for a bit longer.

For the sake of arguments.
If all scientists and climatologists admitted that it is the Sun and not CO2..what do you think would happen??

Alzo, oh AAAAAAAllllllllzzoooooooooo.
Where are you?

I thought you were going to back up your claim that solar forcings could be delayed by 20 to 30 years through some kind of as yet unidentified mechanism.

See, there I was thinking that heat from the sun pretty much hit the earth at the speed of light… and so could only be "delayed" by about 6 to 8 minutes (however long light takes to get here), but then you went and confused me by suggesting that it could be delayed by decades. What, did "Biiirdman!" collect it and release it later or something? (Birdman was the 1967 solar-powered cartoon hero.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdman_and_the_Galaxy_Trio

While I’m on solar & climate, I need to correct a typo I made earlier. I wrote:

(I'm glad you accept the glaring fact that global temperature stopped rising post 2000).

I of course meant to say

“I'm glad you accept the glaring fact that solar energy decreased post 2000” — of course referring to the king-hit against solar being the main driver of climate. Namely…

Temperatures continue to RISE
Solar insolation has in fact DECREASED

See the Solar Flare Index which clearly shows the 7 year decline in solar activity from 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Any Durkinites out there want to explain that one please?

I guess my AGW scepticism is instinctive,
- because the theory of anthropogenic CO2 induced global warming preceded the evidence - the origin of the current hysteria was not "the discovery of global warming but the possibility of global warming..... it was not possible to detect anthropogenic warming in 1980" (The Discovery of Global Warming, by Spencer Weart). Michael Duffy has put it neatly, "If global warming didn't exist, it would have been necessary to invent it."

- because of the dubious roles played by 'activist scientists' many relics of the loopy counter culture of the 60s and 70s (or influenced by it) - e.g. James Lovelock.

- because of the role of 'activist scientists' in the establishment of the IPCC and their propensity to go beyond the traditional boundaries of science.

- because of the ready adoption of the AGW faith by all manner of charlatans, carpet baggers and power hungry demagogues.

- because of the part played by the Left which, following the collapse of international socialism, has adopted AGW as their 'cause du jour' - they like the so-called 'cures' which are anti-development and anti-capitalist - preferring some some insane utopian ideal that seems to owe more to the Teletubbies than to Marx.

- because of AGW zealots' false evidence such as the Mann 'hockey stick' diagram which even I could recognize (from general pre-AGW literature and history) was dodgy as well as fatuous assertions like "The underlying cause of climate change since about 1800 is human activity'.

-because of the refusal of AGW zealots to consider any alternative factors and their seeming mad scramble to hurriedly counter any new evidence that may challenge their dearly held theory.

-because of AGW zealots' almost religious fervor, their increasing shrillness and their resort to every known logical fallacy (including argumentum ad nauseam), debating trick, personal abuse and general bitchiness in order to quash dissent.

re:
"- because of the part played by the Left which, following the collapse of international socialism, has adopted AGW as their 'cause du jour' - they like the so-called 'cures' which are anti-development and anti-capitalist - preferring some some insane utopian ideal that seems to owe more to the Teletubbies than to Marx."

Admiral,
I suggest you have a look at the work of Amory Lovins, who has been working on energy alternatives for over 30 years. You may convincingly argue that he is green, but he es far from "left". Energy efficiency is the strategy he has successfully pursued, and continues to pursue through the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI).

I suggest you check out their website and see whether they are as anti-capitalist as you might presume.

I am satisfied that
(1) "Science never proves anything" (attributable to Gregory Bateson)
(2) Global warming is a threat worth taking very seriously
and
(3)Energy use must be significantly cut, and can be cut in such a way that first, second and third world economies and societies can manage.

Times change. Industries change. In Australia, manufacturing industries have steadily disappeared, and not because of the left, but rather because of globalisation Have a look at the past 20 years and argue otherwise. Be sure to include the example of Ford's Geelong plant, and the 600 jobs to be lost there.

As for the coal and oil industries, I see chemical feedstocks being burnt as though nothing much mattered beyond profitability over the next 20 years. These are irreplaceable chemical feedstocks. To me, burning them for immediate profit is like burning antique furniture to keep warm; a measure for the most desperate circumstances. The companies which own them and are selling them indiscriminately need to look at how they can diversify into more sustainable energy-related markets and strategies.

Good points Sir Vivor.

Admiral, “Greenies” and “Lefties” and “Teletubbies” doesn’t prove a thing. Sheer name calling doesn’t even constitute what we call an “argument” either.

Science invented the hydrogen bomb — but some end of the world cults and survivalist movements have sprung up around it. So what? The bomb still exists even though there are nutters.

Science invented tinfoil — but some people use it to make silly hats that “prevent aliens listening to their brainwaves”. So what? Tinfoil does not stop existing just because there are some nutters.

Science discovered Co2 stores heat in the atmosphere about 100 years ago — but some neo-primitivists dance naked around their campfires and sing songs about global warming sending us back to the stone age. So what? That doesn’t prevent the earth warming up, the glaciers melting, summer melt-water drying up and forcing millions to move. Global warming will attract nutters because of some of the more apocalyptic scenarios — but it does not prevent Global Warming involving state of the art science.

Remember your high school English please. Try to use propositions, facts, and counter-arguments. Just stating that the hockey stick graph “was dodgy” does not debunk the work of thousands of climatologists. Just calling the conclusions of multiple fields of science “fatuous” does not make the hard data go away. Both fail the Year 7 English test principle.

Trotting out every anti-greenie cliché you can think of does not actually rescue the Durkinite alternative theory from some very “inconvenient truths”. Why is the earth getting warmer? It’s not the sun. Over the last 7 years the sun has been fractionally cooler while the earth became warmer — please explain.

And please stop the silly name calling. Or do I indulge in calling you a right-wing Liberal voting big business capitalist that just wants an excuse to chop the old growth forests down to make some money, dang the consequences?

These two sentences are wrong together "Roman Warming, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. Both history and archaeology show that in previous warmings, temperatures were far higher than at present" The problem with this is that yes temperatures were at times warmer but not in human history. Roman warming was cooler than now and it is likely it was caused by the clearing of woodland in order to grow grain to sustain the Roman empire. The temperature does change through volcanoes and asteroids and continental drift. Last time it was truley warmer some of the atmosphere and oceans became poisonous.

What climate change skeptics should focus on is why did atmospheric scientists assasinate JFK ? A nuclear war is good for human health why are we being lied to? The world is flat lets stop this madness of sending sailors blindly to the edge. Where is Noahs Ark?

Because what the climate change skeptic is arguing is that breathing in exhaust fumes has no consequence to our health and polluting the atmosphere has no impact on the environment. Climate change aside these things are measured and impacts recorded by scientists and health carers. Sounds like some people are still peeved at the banning of back yard incinerators, certainly many pollution skeptic authors think their ridiculous conspiracy theories are some how clever. Some industry groups have no morality to excersise and have deemed greed justifies anything.

EclipseNow, you will need to still forgive me for assuming you are in a permanent state of eclipse, although it looks like you have now found our sunnyboy at wiki. Wacko! At that wiki site, use your high school English education and notice that chart showing the Little Ice Age 1560 - 1830 with the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period on the sun in which there were practically no sunspots at all.... It is explained quite well here as a global phenomenon ... notice in the lead up to the MM an erratic solar cycle.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

However, you continue with this funny stuff ....... “I'm glad you accept the glaring fact that solar energy decreased post 2000” — of course referring to the king-hit against solar being the main driver of climate. Namely… Temperatures continue to RISE Solar insolation has in fact DECREASED"

Are you assuming our lovely earth is in thermodynamic equilibrium with sunnyboy? Just seems your problem is typical of greenhousers ..... alarmism.

Kieran you’ve quoted a sailor & economist against the thousands of fully-trained, professional, life-long climatologists that report on Global Warming. These are all thoroughly trained scientists trying to sceptically debunk each others work and make a name for themselves — yet some how mysteriously they all missed the climatology insights of an economics teacher turned science hack.

In my experience, economists have led governments up the garden path on a number of scientific issues. Economists seem skeptical that any natural limits will ever DARE impede any of their precious economic models.

Even Daly’s obituary tries to put a positive spin on his lack of training. "Although self-taught, John was a gifted scientist.”
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/special/dalyobit.html

Hmmm. I come from a humanities background, and even I’ve had an article published on peak oil — a scientific matter. It’s easy to get published if you make enough noise, so just because this guy published an article or 2 doesn’t mean he’s an “authority”.

The website you quote is a sad tribute to a man who died after wasting the last decade of his life debunking AGW as his hobby. Maybe he did some good in asking some “Devil’s advocate” questions, but presenting him as a hero of reason against a tide of irrational hysteria is wrong.

Why believe one economist over the 11 thousand scientists who signed a letter of concern to George Bush? I get it… only someone who isn’t trained in science but as a sailor and economist can “see clearly” through the IPCC trickery to reality. What a crock!

Daly’s arguments are debunked by a CSIRO researcher below.
http://people.aapt.net.au/~johunter/greenhou/home.html

Regular climate science — with CO2 as one of many climate drivers — can easily accommodate the Maunder Minimum (over which there is still much debate).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum#Little_Ice_Age

But quite frankly, Durkin and Daly’s single solar forcing theory completely fails to explain INCREASING global temperatures with DECREASING solar activity.

"Solar cycles lead to a small increase of 0.07 percent in brightness over the last 30 years. This effect is far too minute to contribute significantly to global warming.[28][29]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming#Solar_variation

One last try on the Maunder Minimum.

It is a known scientific principle that one has to test all variables. Correlation does not prove causation. In legal terms, “Post hoc ergo propter hoc.” The actual mechanism of causal events between sun-spot inactivity during the Maunder Minimum and the actual cooling of the time has not been properly spelt out yet. A study as recent as 2004 casts doubt on this link.

See The Atmosphere: An introduction to Meteorology by Lutgens, F and Tarbuck, E. (Prentice Hall).
http://tinyurl.com/2kx6cu

I’ll try spell it out one last time…

2005 hottest year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming#Recent

2005 lowest solar cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

If you are going to argue the Maunder Minimum and apparently support Durkin, are you going to offer a decent explanation for the above incongruity? Come on mate, after writing the following…

“Frankly, I agree with Ian's thoughts about science and particularly that we should be seriously embarrassed with the manner in which our national broadcaster handled this doco. It points to weak people, a weak media and an outcome where science faces a diminishing role in public policy.”

… surely I am allowed to be sceptical of your theory if it doesn’t fit the most accurate data we have from the spunkiest new equipment? Surely this is a glaring factoid that requires better explanation from Durkinites than “I don’t want to talk about it, instead… here, look at the Maunder Minimum”.

"Alzo, oh AAAAAAAllllllllzzoooooooooo.
Where are you?"
I see Eclipse Now has been busy filling the forum with rubbish while I have been on holidays. I've had a lovely few days on the coast burning some fossil fuels...

"I thought you were going to back up your claim that solar forcings could be delayed by 20 to 30 years through some kind of as yet unidentified mechanism."
A bit hard to back up something that is unidentified isn't it? I don't buy the single-forcing model as you put it. Which is also why I don't accept the "CO2 did it" story either.

Lags happen every day with solar forcings, so why not with climate? The maximum radiation from the Sun is received near noon, the maximum daily temperatures are obtained a few hours later in the afternoon. The same lag effect occurs with the winter solstice. The southern hemisphere reaches its seasonal solar minimum on June 21, yet the coldest days are not until July. Here are 2 very obvious solar lags present in out system due to thermal inertia and yet you dismiss out of hand the possibility of lags in the climate system.

Divergence between temperature and CO2 has occurred as well. Between 1940 and 1975 global temperatures dropped while CO2 was really being pumped into the atmosphere. Faced with this divergence the hysterics came up with "global dimming" and "it would be whole lot warmer if wasn't for this cooling thing". This might be believable if it wasn't for the fact that most aerosols are still being produced in the Northern Hemisphere (esp. China) at much the same level as 1940-1975, this is where most "dimming" should occur, yet this is where the greatest increases in temperature are being seen (in fact there has hardly been any warming in the southern hemisphere). There is also a bit of a divergence happening right now as CO2 emissions continue to rise, global temperatures are in stasis (maybe even slightly falling).

Eclipse Now, with all due respect – get on with your life.

There are more important things than trying to convince recalcitrant pseudo-scientists here on “On Line Opinion” who think they know more than genuine experts in climate science, oceanography, palaeobiogeochemistry, atmospheric physics, etc combined.

OLO ‘wanabe’ scientists like Alzo and Keiran et-al will not confront the genuine scientists directly with their musings (and that is what they are). These intransigents will often only spruik the dogma found on well known “denialist” websites to anyone that will engage (as you seem to be doing).

This is problematic as I and others appreciate you mean well. However, by entering into dialogue with the obstinate you are giving them further opportunity to distort and misrepresent the science. For the layperson, this is confusing and gives the impression that not even “the experts” agree – which is far from the truth because there is wide agreement.

As an aside, I found it very revealing that not one OLO global warming ‘sceptic’ had anything to say about Guy Pearse’s book ‘High and Dry’ (previously posted). I have just finished reading it and it exposes much about the policies of the current government and the groups and people who have their ear (and funding carrot) on matters concerning climate change. An extract can be found here:

http://www.highanddry.com.au/extract.cfm

Our problem is not really about the science, but the power and control games of politicians and vested interest groups in maintaining the status quo, whose mantra is deny and delay at all costs.

Goodness me, EclipseNow, is still having trouble finding old sunnyboy? I thought pointing him to a quite scholarly article written by John Daly may have been helpful. Daly obviously sees through Mann's attempted revision of the last millennium's climatic history although many others have done a better job debunking the stooopidity of the`Hockey Stick'.

But Daly isn't a character assassin like a superficial Tony Jones or the EclipseNow, because he goes much deeper to the core of the issue. He points to a blinded process that led to a chorus of approval along with a complete lack of critical evaluation. He says ..."The industry embraced the theory for one reason and one reason only - it told them exactly what they wanted to hear." (Here include solar/cosmic denialists like Davsab.)

Also, I find it significant that early on Daly was realising the potential democratising medium of the internet ....... i.e. insisting that scientists honour their profession by seeking to avoid putting scientific knowledge on a pedestal above knowledge obtained through other means. In this respect, as many of my postings on OLO will attest, the internet is our new 360 degree medium of communication because it is many to many and beyond the 20th century dictatorship of the modern and beyond the superficial, lateral post-modern.

We are all scientists, artists and philosophers. It is easy to forget that science is essentially a philosophical discipline. It is based on empiricism, the method by which we gain knowledge through observation and measurement. History also teaches us to be cautious of deductive processes like relying on mathematics or religious bandwagons as a starting point. As far as knowledge and our place in an infinite connected universe is concerned we have barely scratched the surface but I simply share the humble, skeptical, induction process of find and ye shall seek.

“Here include solar/cosmic denialists like Davsab” – Keiran is deliberately lying or hasn’t read my post Friday, 27 July 2007 11:47:42 pm (above) or can’t understand it.

Daly is a self-proclaimed scientist (reminiscent of Keiran’s aspirations) who offered many opinion pieces, both in the media and to people like Ray Evans and the Lavoisier Group (LG), all dedicated to the argument that “the world's best climatologists are misguided, thick-headed or so lacking in integrity that they would invent a worldwide environmental scare story to help them bulk up their research budgets.”

Ray Evans (LG’s secretary and TGGWS panelist) co-wrote Daly’s obituary and has adopted Daly’s modus operandi of writing op-ed pieces in the media and organising home-grown and imported global warming sceptics to promote denial and delay. The LG also cultivates “true believers” (people like Keiran) to their cause, often unknowingly acting like ‘front men’.

People (like Daly and Evans and Keiran et-al) and groups (like Lavoisier, Institute of Public Affairs, Centre for Independent Studies, Cato Institute, Tech Central Station, etc are not satisfied with the scientific peer review process, claiming it a sham at best or a worldwide conspiracy at worst.

There is no doubt science would be made easier by throwing out the concept of peer review. Scientists curse from time to time the rigorous questioning of their peers, the need to re-visit completed work and the possibility that years’ of research may be for naught based on the scrutiny of their colleagues.

However, the peer-review process of science plays an extremely important role in ensuring that conclusions drawn by research are in fact sound before being touted in the scientific community. Without peer review, science could easily fall into the category of opinion – a.k.a. OLO and pseudo-scientists like Keiran.

Keiran is right in one respect; the internet is a great research tool. So why can’t pseudo-scientists like Keiran use it to do honest research BEFORE they show their ignorance, rather than taking a particular point of view because it suits their chosen ideology/philosophy and sprouting their nonsense to any who are willing to listen?

Boxer vows to act on global warming
The Salinas Californian - Salinas,CA,USA
Barbara Boxer led a group of her Senate colleagues on a weekend trip to Greenland for a first-hand glimpse of the effects of global warming. ...

I do not understand why a "genuine scientist" like davsab would be bothered continuing to waste his valuable time contributing to this site (prolifically).
His valiant efforts are not appreciated.
Davsab I sympathize.
Grand Admirals of the Austro-Hungarian Imperial and Royal Navy are similarly disrespected.

I know Davsab, yet I feel I must counter their propaganda.

Tell me Alzo — what delays some of the temperature variations you are describing during the day and seasons? What blankets our earth and protects us from the immediate consequences of a 100% solar forcing which would result in freezing at night and cooking during the day? The atmosphere!

There are also 3 problems with your "critique" of Global Dimming.
1. We are producing more CO2 than ever before, so even IF we were producing as much sulphuric particulates as just after WW2, the CO2 forcing for warming could finally outstrip the sulphuric dimming.
2. We are not producing as much sulfur. Aerosols are not all the same. Clean air regulations have reduced the Dimming particulates because they caused acid rain.
3. Global Dimming has been a known phenomenon for decades.

In fact some want to increase it!

“Some scientists have suggested using aerosols to stave off the effects of global warming as an emergency measure. Russian expert Mikhail Budyko understood this relationship very early on. In 1974, he suggested that if global warming became a problem, we could cool down the planet by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, which would create a haze.[41][42][43] According to Ramanathan (1988), an increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling.[44]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming#Possible_use_to_mitigate_global_warming

You just “believe” that the sun is the only climate driver (though the planet gets warmer during a low solar period). You’d rather believe in a fictitious UNIDENTIFIED mechanism than read about the many clearly IDENTIFIED forcings that skeptical, peer reviewed science has already confirmed. “I do believe in slowed sunlight, I do, I DO!” (Clap your hands 3 times).

Wheras:

“According to Beate Liepert, "We lived in a global warming plus a global dimming world and now we are taking out global dimming. So we end up with the global warming world, which will be much worse than we thought it will be, much hotter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming#Relationship_to_global_warming

For Kieran: see myth 3, “The Hockey stick has been disproved”
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646

The sun has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. When the sun has influence it is very temporary. The sun has not done anything unusual , the earth hasnt wobbled out of sink and we are not passing through a warping as we orbit the galaxy.

Climate change skeptics there are many global warming experiments you can try although I hope and wish you smart enough not to try it and get the point anyway.

1) Block your chimneny and light a fire in your hearth, is it the sun making you suffocate or is the atmosphere in your room?

2) Relieve yourself in your bed for a year without changing your sheets, wash them next July and smell them. Does the gas you smell come from outer space?

3) Do not open a window or use an exhaust fan in your bathroom , make sure the door is kept shut as much as possible. Is the mould alien?

4) In the heat of a dry summer leave your sprinkler on over your lawn for a whole week. Is the humidity due to sun spots?

All the crack pot theories denying anthropogenic caused climate change is crazy talk, baseless conjecture, loco.

Gosh Davsab, there is no doubt in my mind that you are a "solar/cosmic denialist" with no need on my part to invent nor misunderstand your position. Climate is not driven by the radiation balance of the planet as you say because these many and varied systems in the atmosphere, on the surface and "underground" are the effect not the cause. Our planet's orbit changes and resulting wobbles are also effects. The "Little Ice Age" is an effect driven by solar/cosmic changes but any true blue Michael Mann devotee would like to write that one out of the history books. You present your credentials like an open book by support for the realclimate website with its obvious editorial policy as well as promoting BAMOS's publications. Need I say anymore?

I have no doubt in my mind also that I have always expressed the view that solar and cosmic plasma discharges DRIVE earth's climate. It is also my expressed view that the solar/cosmic driver should influence our behaviour and understanding of our place in an infinite connected environment. e.g. With all this additional CO2 fertilizer courtesy of an active sunnyboy, we should be out there doing the greening, improving an efficiency with water and improving bio-diversity especially within the soil structure.

EclipseNow, I must say that you are unfortunately a simple pushover if you believe your "myth 3, “The Hockey stick has been disproved”". Also,our earth and atmosphere are simply not expected to be in thermodynamic equilibrium with the solar/cosmic driver. Does that make sense?

No it doesn't make sense Kieran — you are believing mutually contradictory theories at the same time. Don't pour scorn on the IPCC work when you resort to quoting an already debunked economist!

How can the sun be the main driver and yet the earth not be in sync with it on a daily and seasonal basis? Nope, BUZZZZZZ, try again. You obviously believe in "slowed sunlight" as well. ("I do believe in fairies, I do, I DO!")

If sunlight was the main driver, surely daytime maximums would be rising faster than night time minimums. The opposite is true, showing that there is a residual storage of heat energy in our atmosphere — NOT driven by "sunnyboy darling dearest." (Aren't you cute — you call the sun "Sunnyboy" all the time. Whoopee for you.)

The so-called "Medieval warm period" was ruled out as:-
1. Viking real estate propaganda in so called "Greenland" (The ice there is hundreds of thousands of years old, and any so called appeal to massively larger agricultural areas than there are now is yet more Never-Never land stuff)
2. various local warm patches in Europe or England resulting from a COOLING stratosphere which resulted in strange, patchy activity in the Troposphere.
3. Natural scientific skepticism — which is alive and well thank you — reviewed the data. Many different fields of science failed to confirm a GLOBAL warming period — from tree rings to other data. There is a difference between a local weather event and GLOBAL CLIMATE.

THERE WAS NO WARM PERIOD, there were possibly some warm local events. Next you'll be quoting the 4 elements of Air, Water, Earth and Fire as an older model we should adopt!

Anyone confused by Kieran's illogical posts should refer to the New Scientist article on 26 myths (that Kieran's ilk keep quoting like a mantra).

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Grand Admiral of the Austro-Hungarian Imperial and Royal Navy - thanks for the sympathy. “There are more things in Heaven and Earth than man has ever dreamed of” – WS.

Sunnyboy, read my lips: “there are three fundamental ways the Earth’s radiation balance can change, causing a climate change:

1) changing the incoming solar radiation (e.g., by changes in the Earth’s orbit or in the Sun itself),

2) changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (this fraction is called the albedo – it can be changed by cloud cover, aerosols or land cover),

3) altering the long-wave energy radiated back to space (e.g., by changes in CO2-e concentrations, increasingly like what is happening now).

ALL OF THESE FACTORS PLAY A ROLE IN CLIMATE CHANGE.”

Which point/s (1, 2, 3) don’t you understand?

Sunnyboy, please go and do some homework (research), if you are capable of taking off the blinkers that is.

It may help you if you also researched "attribution studies", papers are there for you to seek and find, or as you say "find and ye shall seek" (sic).

Eclipse Now, now I wish you well.

"1. We are producing more CO2 than ever before, so even IF we were producing as much sulphuric particulates as just after WW2, the CO2 forcing for warming could finally outstrip the sulphuric dimming."

So why have global temperatures not risen since 2000? In fact they are slightly declining. Is the sulphuric dimming still outstripping the CO2 forcing?

"2. We are not producing as much sulfur. Aerosols are not all the same. Clean air regulations have reduced the Dimming particulates because they caused acid rain."

Clean air regulations have indeed reduced the dimming particulates in western countries. China however is releasing more sulphur dioxide and sulphates than any other country, easily overtaking the US and the USSR as the main contributor. The increasing global emissions of sulphuir dioxide can be seen here:
http://capita.wustl.edu/CAPITA/CapitaReports/GlobSEmissions/GlobS1850_1990.htm

"3. Global Dimming has been a known phenomenon for decades. "

Oh forgive me for questioning a phenomenon. Global dimming doesn't account for why the southern hemisphere is not warming as quickly as the northern hemisphere. The NH is where all the sulphate aerosols are, yet it is also where all of the warming is occurring. The SH is realtively clear of aerosols compared to the NH, should therfore be receiving more direct solar radiation, and according to greenhouse theory be trapping more of that radiation.

"How can the sun be the main driver and yet the earth not be in sync with it on a daily and seasonal basis? "
It is not in sync...there are lags both daily and seasonally.

"You’d rather believe in a fictitious UNIDENTIFIED mechanism than read about the many clearly IDENTIFIED forcings "
No I believe in clearly IDENTIFIED forcings as well. It is the magnitude of the clearly IDENTIFIED forcings that I question. Obviously the IPCC does too or they wouldn't put such large error bars on them.

Davsab, I read your words on "three fundamental ways the Earth’s radiation balance can change" and gave my response in the last posting. Perhaps i need to elaborate further to make my point more clearly.

The first impression one gets is of a flat earthcentric stance where change is associated with being somewhat unusual. Maybe just my imagination here but when considering your "three fundamental ways" I then find myself asking the question ...... Does this clearly demonstrate an understanding of the difference between cause and effect? I am convinced the answer is NO.

No 1 is quite tentative with no mention of the cosmic connection, hence treating the Earth’s orbit and changes in the sun as mere isolated events. Just as an example using the sun, can you offer a coherent explanation for the approximate eleven-year sunspot cycle if you don't acknowledge causality?

No2 and No3 are products of the solar and cosmic plasma discharges that DRIVE earth's climate. They are not the cause of their own changing behaviour as they adjust and interact within their environment.

Whilst you can proclaim in capitals "ALL OF THESE FACTORS PLAY A ROLE IN CLIMATE CHANGE" you do not say with any causal certainty that the solar and cosmic plasma discharges DRIVE earth's climate. As a real true blue scientist it seems you have the inability to differentiate cause from effect, or pusher from pushed, or process from product.

The temperatures of Southern Hemisphere are warmer and a little more slow to change than the Northern Hemisphere because the Southern Hemisphere is predominantly ocean and the Northern Hemisphere has most of the land mass.

The climate has not cooled at all these last years have been the hottest globally. Some industrial gases actually can feeze local areas. Greenhouse is probably a bad description of the climate change we have caused through unprecedented pollution. We must also keep in mind the effects of some gases will be with us in 500 years if we stopped today and certainly we can blame industrial practices of the 19th century for some of our woes. Lead from petrol up until the 1970's and asbestos will continue to kill us for hundreds of generations to come. Global warming should be called Pollution Based Climate Instability Syndrome. It is a pity that pollution is not addressed in the climate change debate because on our path to economic, social and environmental destruction the exactly same things that are creating climate change are also making us sick if not cancerous and dead.

Excellent points West.

Kieran’s playing semantic games and trying to tune in with “the whole cosmic vibe of the thing" while refusing to engage the clear summary by Davsab. Kieran replies with nonsensical diversions. Kieran wants to debate the original cause of everything. I’ll try.

1. Changing incoming solar radiation… the original cause? Well, once upon a time there was a Big Bang, and eventually matter formed, and gas clouds, and then gravity kicked in and gas clouds collapsed forming stars. Some of these stars became old and tired and went supernova, creating many elements we need to sustain life. Then eventually there was a solar system where one planet collided with another. This event was called the “Big Whack” and left serious wobbles in the surviving planet. These wobbles affected how much solar radiation the planet received in 100 year cycles.

2. Intelligent life arose on that planet and called it “earth”. The earth was blessed with clouds, which of course solar heat originally created through evaporation, but the clouds in turn became another climate-cause, that is, a change in albedo bouncing heat back. There were also these continental plates zooming around all over the place on geological time scales, and boy did they change the climate depending on their position on the globe! This is caused by the internal heat of the earth, which is itself caused by radioactive decay. Continents crashing and tearing apart caused periods of intense volcanism now and then, spiking CO2 through the roof and causing massive dieoffs as the ocean became anoxic. But these settled down and…

3. Intelligent life decided to industrialize by burning huge quantities of “buried sunlight” in the oil, gas, and coal stored away when the oceans were anoxic — and in a small but significant way threatened to repeat the huge releases of CO2 from the earlier super-volcanism periods. Some of these intelligent life forms noticed this, but many dangerous deniers said “bah humbug”. Causes explained, except the cause for perpetual denial and stubbornness.

"The temperatures of Southern Hemisphere are warmer and a little more slow to change than the Northern Hemisphere because the Southern Hemisphere is predominantly ocean and the Northern Hemisphere has most of the land mass."
Oh my, this sounds like a climate lag...Eclipse Now doesn't believe in those. To use his words "confused me by suggesting that it could be delayed by decades. What, did "Biiirdman!" collect it and release it later or something?"

"The climate has not cooled at all these last years have been the hottest globally."
Well it certainly hasn't warmed either. Depending on whose temperature analyses you believe global temperatures are either flat-lining or falling slightly. Southern Hemisphere temperatures are definitely falling, so using your "predominantly ocean" theory, this must mean that the southern oceans are cooling? Nothing to worry about then?
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/hemispheric/southern/

"Some industrial gases actually can feeze local areas."
Are they the ones that Dr. Freeze uses against Batman?

"Lead from petrol up until the 1970's and asbestos will continue to kill us for hundreds of generations to come."
Thats a looooonnng time and a little unlikely. Sure pollution should be addressed, CO2 can hardly be classified alongside lead and asbestos considering we breathe out CO2 at a concentration of 4500ppm. If pollution is killing us all why are our lifespans lengthening?

Alzo, you’ve completely and utterly misrepresented my meaning, and are being a little slippery now in your argument style because the facts are going against you.

To be blunt: I do believe in delayed climate mechanisms — and you know it. You recently scolded me for one of the delay mechanisms when you said… “Between 1940 and 1975 global temperatures dropped while CO2 was really being pumped into the atmosphere. Faced with this divergence the hysterics came up with "global dimming" and "it would be whole lot warmer if wasn't for this cooling thing".

Global Dimming is now fairly mainstream climate science — you are the one denying a perfectly acceptable delaying mechanism — yet I see all sorts of causal effects that have basically confirmed the hypothesis. Global Dimming has been masking and delaying the true effects of Global Warming. But you don’t believe in any of this stuff. It’s too “normal”, part of the “Great Global Warming Swindle” that has been perpetuated on the gullible public and international scientific community by some kind of “Men in Black” Uber-conspiracy that can deceive every independent scientific climatologist so that they can’t publish an acceptable peer reviewed paper.

But I don’t believe in “delaying mechanisms” for solar activity IF the hypothesis is that climate is mainly driven by the sun.

YOU are the one trying to argue that Durkin is right and it’s all down to the sun, and so as the protagonist of a new theory, YOU are the one responsible for explaining how the “solar effects” are delayed without resorting to certain atmospheric effects — because that might back up OUR claim that atmospheric changes can affect climate!

The reality is that the sun’s output is remarkably consistent and even the 11 year cycle only results in a tiny variation of the energy received on earth, and hardly registers with our climate system.

Finally, I think you meant 450 ppm, as 4500 would have cooked our planet beyond even the super-greenhouse effect and anoxic oceans described on the ABC’s documentary “Crude”.
http://abc.net.au/science/crude/

EclipseNow, I must say you are an excitable, entertaining, funny girl.

The big bang alpha/omega idea that you support, is another worshipped religion with its fingers of teddy (god) pointing to Earth, because it interprets everything as if we are the centre of the universe. It is a sexy hypothesis based on the will to believe rather than its opposite ..... the will to find out. Its worship of finite universal causality is not about love of forensic evidence because worship can only misinterpret or ignore or deliberately distort evidence. The fact is that Big Bang cosmology has failed to anticipate any landmark discoveries because it is plainly illogical. Nothing cannot be the cause of something if there ever was such a thing as nothing which is impossible anyway. The BB only exists through its powerful priest class and intellectual dishonesty, is without evidence and obviously the greatest embarrassment of 20th century science.

I'm concerned that the global warming alarmists have a similar arrogant, distorted position.

When attempting to understand solar/cosmic influences on earth's climate, remember that the interaction with our planet is in a wide variety of complex ways and almost certainly that all these factors are influencing our lovely planet, even though we don't fully understand how. But my thoughts on this are not so alarmist because for one major reason ..... our earth and atmosphere are simply not expected to be in thermodynamic equilibrium with solar/cosmic influences. This longer time frame to adapt, points more to a stronger cooling effect when it does happen. To put it another way, (cheeky me), we could be right now in a sharply cooling phase were it not for increased greenhouse gases due to solar and very minimally to human input. We may also then exclaim thank goodness for that.

Ignoring the meat of the global warming issue.

We all emit greenhouse gases simply by breathing - one kilogram of carbon dioxide a day, on average, per person. Since there are six billion of us, we collectively emit more than two trillion kilograms of carbon dioxide a year. Scientists don't hold these emissions against us. What public policy options, after all, exist? Breath control?

All animals emit greenhouse gases and by comparison, humans are relatively restrained respirators. The planet's livestock animals alone, for example, breathe out three billion tonnes of CO{-2} a year. Livestock, indeed, emit more GHG into the atmosphere than all of the cars, freight trucks, railways, airplanes and container ships in the entire world.

.

<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070801.wreynolds0801/EmailBNStory/robColumnsBlogs/home

"But I don’t believe in “delaying mechanisms” for solar activity"
You mean like the oceans. I thought the point I was making was obvious. The lag for solar activity could well be the same mechanism as for CO2 induced warming ie. the oceans. You can't choose to believe the lag exists for one warming mechanism and not the other, it is either there or it is not. So your qualifying statement "IF the hypothesis is that climate is mainly driven by the sun." doesn't make any sense.

"and so as the protagonist of a new theory, YOU are the one responsible for explaining how the “solar effects” are delayed without resorting to certain atmospheric effects"
Again the oceans dampen forcings and cause lags.
Actually the solar (or natural) theory is probably a null hypothesis ie. all previous changes have been natural, it is up to the CO2 hysterians to explain why the current changes should be attributed to man.

"Finally, I think you meant 450 ppm, as 4500 would have cooked our planet beyond even the super-greenhouse effect and anoxic oceans described on the ABC’s documentary “Crude”."
No I meant a person's exhaled breath is 4500ppm CO2 which cannot be considered a poisonous or your own breath will kill you. Here' what I said for the slow ones.
"CO2 can hardly be classified alongside lead and asbestos considering we breathe out CO2 at a concentration of 4500ppm. "
Considering past CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and life flourished, it is unlikely that a CO2 doubling to 560ppm will have much effect.

"Global Dimming is now fairly mainstream climate science"
I have no problem with the concept of Global Dimming. However, the NH temperatures are showing the greatest rises, in the exact place where the greatest amount of dimming occurs. All the while the SH is cooling. What we should be seeing is faster rates of warming in the SH. If you then argue that the oceans are keeping the SH cool then the oceans must have a greater effect on temperature than the atmosphere?

Alzo,

One the one hand Durkin was banging on about an exact and immediate correlation between solar activity and temperature. Then he was exposed as a fraud when he presented the graph as being up till “NOW” when actually dealing with data 20 years old, and that omitted the massive discrepancy between solar activity and temperature.

Enter Alzo to save the day with a “previously unidentified” oceanic delaying mechanism that mysteriously only works when Durkin needs it to, but whose effect was completely unnoticeable when Durkin was presenting his “Solar Driver” hypothesis. If oceans — or any other magical mechanism you care to mention — delay the solar forcings now, why did Durkin present solar & climate effects as immediate? If ocean’s don’t delay the effect, then Durkin is stuck with the divergence he expediently left off the end of this graph.

“Actually the solar (or natural) theory is probably a null hypothesis ie. all previous changes have been natural, it is up to the CO2 hysterians to explain why the current changes should be attributed to man.”

We already have demonstrated it.

Incidentally, previous Co2 Super-Greenhouse disasters and dieoffs were naturally induced through excessive volcanism, and we have abundant evidence of all of this in the geological and palaeontology record. Everything from the oil source rocks through to the Ginko plant fossils demonstrate what can happen when Co2 super-spikes. It can be deadly. Life did not flourish when CO2 suer-spiked in the past. It coincided with a massive die-off event. Watch part 3 of “Crude” linked to above.

Global Dimming particles spread affecting the global temperature, not just regions.

Kieran — your lack of respect for the Big Bang theory and modern empirical evidence mean that this conversation can no longer continue. I share some of your “FIRST CAUSE” metaphysical questions, but they are philosophical and religious in nature. Global Warming is a scientific question, and because you do not respect science (or logical argument it seems) I will be ignoring your posts from now. They make no sense anyway. I suggest others do the same.

Phew, believing that ......... you can get a bang in a vacuum or incredibly that the universe is expanding into itself, not only shows respect for modern empirical evidence, but is a good example of logical argument ....... must represent a peerless eclipse of reason.

Another eclipse of reason would be how anyone could get accurate temperatures from tree rings and rate this above peer reviewed evidence from solar scientists who demonstrate a clear relationship between solar change and climate change.

ps
Or how one can continually put i before e when spelling Keiran. Well perhaps i is more important than 'e and where did 'e go?

"why did Durkin present solar & climate effects as immediate?"
Durkin just showed the correlation between solar output and temperature up until 1985. I don't believe he made any inferences as to whether the effect was immediate.

"We already have demonstrated it."
Is this like the royal "we"?

"Incidentally, previous Co2 Super-Greenhouse disasters and dieoffs were naturally induced through excessive volcanism"
The die-offs were more likely caused by methane a far more potent greenhouse gas.

"Global Dimming particles spread affecting the global temperature, not just regions."
Actually, if you bothered to read the IPCC report (Ch.2 Page 209) you would find that the dimming effect is largely regionalised. I guess when you get your info from TV shows it might be hard to tell.

How now Brown Cow

A new study in the Aug. 2 issue of the British science journal Nature found that the solid particles suspended in the atmosphere (called “aerosols”) that make up “brown clouds” may actually contribute to warmer temperatures — precisely the opposite effect heretofore claimed by global warming alarmists.

“These findings might seem to contradict the general notion of aerosol particles as cooling agents in the global climate system …,” concluded the Nature news article summing up the study.

Based on data collected by unmanned aerial vehicles over the Indian Ocean, researchers from the University of California, San Diego and NASA reported not only that aerosols warmed temperatures, but they also increased atmospheric heating by 50 percent. This warming, they say, may be sufficient to account for the retreat of the Himalayan glaciers.

Putting aside the fact that the Himalayan glaciers have been retreating since 1780 — some 70 years before the onset of the current post-Little Ice Age warming trend and 100 years before the onset of significant global industrialization — full appreciation of the significance of the researchers’ finding requires a brief trip down recent-memory lane, one, incidentally, that no media outlet reporting this finding bothered to make.

Global warming alarmism is rooted in the idea that ever-increasing manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, cause global temperatures to warm. This idea, however, doesn’t match up very well against real-world observations.

During the 20th century, for example, while manmade carbon dioxide emissions steadily increased from about 1940 to 1975, global temperatures cooled.

Global warming alarmists, such as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), try to counter this observation by claiming that aerosol particles in the atmosphere — like soot and sulfates from fossil fuel combustion, and dust from volcanic eruptions — can mask the warming effect of greenhouse gases and cool the planet by reflecting solar radiation back into space.

So then, which is it? Do aerosols cool or warm the planet? Can they do both?

There are many different kinds of aerosols, some just water droplets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol

Some increase global warming such as water vapours, some of which increase global DIMMING such as sulfuric particles. Indeed, some have proposed this as a solution to GW but others say it will be far too expensive.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/12343892/can_dr_evil_save_the_world

Lumping them all in together is intellectually dishonest and not helping accurate discussion. Even the recent data is inconclusive some points, suggesting an evolving sub-field within climate science...

"On a global scale, clouds of aerosols from biomass burning and fossil fuel consumption cool the atmosphere by reflecting sunlight back into space. But the particles also absorb solar radiation, and it has been suspected they could warm certain levels of the atmosphere."

"It is becoming more obvious that the role of aerosols is not as simple as we once thought," says Piers Forster, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds, UK. "They don't just provide cooling, they're actually giving far more complicated and regional changes."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1875092/posts

Alzo, just saying "Correlation" instead of "causation" does not address the fundamental problem. You're just being slippery with words to avoid the point. Why did the ocean SUDDENLY and CONVENIENTLY switch on its delaying effects for the inconvenient bit of data Durkin purposely left off the end of his graph?

(I seriously can't believe you are devoting so much effort to defending this fraud.)

re:

"global warming zealots are stifling debate".

not here, it seems, so we clearly have the exception which demolishes the rule.

Here on OLO as just a little nobody, it has been my expressed view that the solar/cosmic driver should influence our behaviour and understanding of our place in an infinite connected environment. However, whilst "mainstream" astrophysicists continue with their failing "gravity only" big bang hypothesis with ever more absurd fictions, not only will future historians of science judge this era insane but rather by being so false, just how can humanity collectively ensure a continued appreciation of the beauty of existence?

There is voluminous evidence that the universe is more than the standard solid, liquid and gas ..... i.e. that ignores all electrical mechanisms. Is it because the bigbang priests and astronomers have regarded electric fields as too difficult to measure or that arrogantly we didn't need to know? However, my point is that being uneducated in plasma and electromagnetic field theory, all now filters down to this apparent pressing issue of climate in our galaxy, solar system and earth's atmosphere, surface and subsurface environments.

The Durkin doco's strength was to take us out of some self imposed guilt mindset and to see the bigger picture which is hardly controversial. Any perceived errors, anomalies, exaggerations or chart misinterpretations in the doco deserve investigation but in the end, these point to how little we know about the solar/cosmic environment where earth is but a small part player.

There is a growing realization that the cosmos is highly electrical in nature. A starting point for those interested is ......

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/index.html

..... where there is much find and ye shall seek. (i.e. People with eyes wide open and actually able to find things.)

Kieran,

"Any perceived errors, anomalies, exaggerations or chart misinterpretations in the doco deserve investigation but in the end, these point to how little we know about the solar/cosmic environment where earth is but a small part player."

I think you meant to write:

"in the end, these point to how little DURKIN knows"

Kieran, can you please stop SPAMMING your incessant nonsense about a completely irrelevant topic? You've got like, far out ideas about the interconnectedness of the cosmos man, like wow. Good for you. But we are talking about Global Warming here. So go somewhere else to recruit for your new UFO cult. Please go away.

I live in hope that Alzo will try to answer the last questions I put to him.

"brown clouds may actually contribute to warmer temperatures"
snowbird this is a very interesting paper. It reminds me of another out not too long ago in the Journal of Geophysical Research which found:
"Snow becomes dirty when soot from tailpipes, smoke stacks and forest fires enters the atmosphere and falls to the ground. Soot-infused snow is darker than natural snow. Dark surfaces absorb sunlight and cause warming, while bright surfaces reflect heat back into space and cause cooling."
and
"In the past two centuries, the Arctic has warmed about 1.6 degrees. Dirty snow caused .5 to 1.5 degrees of warming, or up to 94 percent of the observed change, the scientists determined."

It seems the climate scientists may be long way off understanding aerosols which seem to have a much greater impact on climate than poor ol' CO2. Aerosols combined with increased solar activity during the late 20th century don't leave much room for a large CO2 driven component of warming.

"There are many different kinds of aerosols, some just water droplets."
The IPPC quotes the following for aerosols:
"Sulphate, fossil fuel organic carbon, fossil fuel black carbon,
biomass burning and mineral dust aerosols were all identified
as having a significant anthropogenic component and exerting
a significant direct RF."
and
"Key parameters for determining
the direct RF are the aerosol optical properties, which vary as a function of wavelength and relative humidity, and the atmospheric loading and geographic distribution of the aerosols in the horizontal
and vertical, which vary as a function of time"
So dimming is regionalised according to the functions described here. They may contribute to global temperature but only in a statistical way. Most of the key anthropogenic aerosols that cause "dimming" are produced in the Northern Hemisphere. Please describe how they affect the SH temperatures.

"Why did the ocean SUDDENLY and CONVENIENTLY switch on its delaying effects..."
Oceans take a while to warm up...
I am not defending Durkin, just solar activity which has been so comprehensively dismissed as a possible cause of recent warming.

I apologize Alzo if I misled anyone on the list about sulfuric aerosols. My understanding was that they spread through the upper atmosphere causing a fairly consistent global dimming, but it may be that you and the IPCC are right and that they cool more locally, dimming whole regions where sulfur has been emitted on massive scales.

Maybe human sulfuric particles don’t get as high as huge volcanic events, and that's why the effect is more local? Maybe that’s why Lowell Wood was suggesting flying particles up in 747’s?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/12343892/can_dr_evil_save_the_world

However we know dimming occurs. You keep banging on about the hemispheres... did you ever consider that the answer is simple, and that increased dimming in the Northern Hemisphere may have disguised even more drastic effects of global warming that would have occurred there otherwise? We know the NH warms first.

Also, the dimming effects of some aerosols are under question from a very recent study that has yet to pass the test of time, other aerosols like sulfuric particulates have already survived this test.

What hasn’t survived the test of time is the theory that solar activity was the main driver. The solar graph he used was doctored. Even the author of that graph dislikes the emphasis Durkin put on it, and subscribes to standard climate science. You have not quoted a convincing study that explains away the solar discrepancies.

Dozens and dozens of independent government bodies and universities and climate think tanks have all come to the same conclusion. If it was ONE convention where ONE group of scientists may have got a bit over-excited about CO2, then maybe the “stifling of scientific debate” has some credence. But please explain a worldwide hoodwinking of thousands of different scientists and a couple dozen of organizations?

You are clutching at small margins of error in one forcing to try and disprove an established theory. The role of CO2 has been proved. If you wish to trash an established theory, you’re going to have to come up with a better argument.

"Maybe human sulfuric particles don’t get as high as huge volcanic events"
Thats true...they don't. Volcanic events put stuff into the stratosphere. Humans messing with the climate artificially is a bit scary and will probably do more harm than good.

"increased dimming in the Northern Hemisphere may have disguised even more drastic effects of global warming that would have occurred there otherwise?"
So the SH is cooling while the NH is warming. I'm afraid this doesn't fit the CO2 enhanced greenhouse theory as it is supposed to be a well mixed gas ie. the same amount of CO2 is at either end of the Earth. I know I know, you will point to the Southern Ocean as being the reason for the difference. This would indicate that the oceans have more effect on climate than the atmosphere. So if the oceans aren't heating then there isn't much to worry about? Since 1978 satellites have been measuring the temperatures of the oceans and guess what? Global ocean anomaly is +0.1, SH ocean anomaly is -0.2, NH ocean is +0.28. Not much worth getting excited about.
According to the ARGO ocean monitoring network there has not been any warming withing the world's oceans since the early 2000's. Wake me up if global warming cranks up again will you and I'll have another look.

"But please explain a worldwide hoodwinking of thousands of different scientists and a couple dozen of organizations?"
They've done it before (eg. eugenics) and they'll do it again. Believe it or not, it is not a consensus that progresses science.

Skeptics also argue that smoking is not bad for you for the same reasons.

Durkin's doco highlighted that there are scientists who don't want to close their eyes and who can look at the Vostok ice core records, seeing clear evidence for half a million years that temperature leads CO2 concentration ( and CH4 concentration). Other ice core studies provide similar clear evidence. Any person on a galloping horse would see that this provides us with very strong evidence against CO2 as the driver of climate changes. CO2 almost seems irrelevant or minuscule at best as when heated it expands, becomes lighter, rises in the atmosphere and consequently more easily gives heat away. Whenever it has been at high levels it hasn't stopped temperatures falling ...... i.e. it can be heading in quite different directions for significant periods.

So what creates the rising and falling temperatures? We know that the solar/cosmic influence is large. We know that our largest plasma discharge formation, the sun, has obvious electro-magnetic features we call sunspots. We know sunspots flare up and settle down in cycles of roughly eleven years and that for most of the twentieth century has shown abnormally high activity. The present cycle 23 nearing its end has been a turning point and if it extends longer than eleven years then the next cycle is expected to be even quieter. Diminishing solar activity is a distinct possibility because the sun's polar field is now at its weakest since measurements began in the early 1950s.

Just seems that speculation of the next solar crash is about all we are capable of because there is profound ignorance and even a total eclipse of reason when it comes to understanding how the sun really ticks and what forms of energy become inputs to earth's climate. While ever we view the sun as a campfire, likened to a burning lump of coal, isolated, self-sufficient and self-immolating we may never come to terms with the desire for renewable energy.

Keirin jurkin the gherkin like furkin Durkin.

Gone a week and I come back to this same old waffle from this same old ‘wanabe’ scientist spruiking his same old rant and who obviously still hasn’t done his homework.

Alzo, Eclipse Now – enjoy your tête-à-tête. For one approaching emeritus status, there are much better fora to have meaningful discussions about the vagaries of global warming so cheers and bye-bye.

I apologise from the start that I have little opinion about climate change. I just felt like responding to the first comment above (right at the top, which also made no reference to climate change).

Who is Ian Plimer? He’s a guy well known for speaking on topics he knows little about.

He wrote a book about ten years ago derisive of creationists. It contained poorly argued science, character assassinations of respected scientists, half truths, total fabrications, and many spelling errors.

The funniest clunker that I still remember after the reading the book ten years ago was where he tried making an argument about probability using the analogy of spelling words by randomly selecting from the ‘23 letters’ of the English alphabet. He never said which three letters he couldn’t accept. The whole book carried on in a similar manner.

On that occasion, the ABC supported him wholeheartedly with much free publicity.

If Ian Plimer is offering to bat for your side in any scientific endeavour, best let him carry the drinks.

Notice Alzo’s interesting tactic of concentrating on SMALLER forcings and repeating endlessly, “What if they are bigger than that?” (Close your eyes and click your ruby slippers together 3 times as you chant.)

Alzo has not come up with a viable alternative to or critique of today’s theory, he just does not LIKE the current theory. Rather than look at the extensive papers covering all the minor forcings he quotes, he just asks, “What if?” That is not science.

Try plugging into Triple J’s “Hack” show covering the Swindle below.

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/mp3s/hack_swindle.mp3

Or try Dr Karl’s own “Great Moments in science” on the Greenhouse consensus at

http://www.abc.net.au/science/podcast/gmis/gmis20070531.mp3

Or you can read the transcript here.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1938551.htm

One very salient point to quote:

“Now an important thing to realize in this debate is the role of the specialist. You wouldn't get a builder to do plumbing, and you wouldn't ask a pathologist to do some surgery. So if you wanted an opinion on climatology, you would not ask a meteorologist, or a virologist, botanist, metallurgist, or physicist - you would ask a climatologist. Among the climatologists, there is agreement that carbon dioxide levels are increasing, and that in turn, this is raising temperature and ocean levels. On December 3, 2004, Dr. Naomi Oreskes from the University of California analysed 928 scientific papers that dealt with "climate change", and that had been published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. Not one of these 928 papers disagreed with the consensus position, even though they may have disagreed in minor details.”

But Alzo just says “Eugenics”. Go ahead Alzo, say nasty words, they make 928 papers by the experts in this field just vanish into thin air. ;-)

I’ll repeat myself for Alzo’s benefit. If you think they reached this consensus by taking a vote on it, you’re only fooling yourself. I’ve highlighted how fiercely independent most scientists and scientific organizations really are. Science is progressed by studying new data and hypothesis and testing the current paradigms repeatedly... 928 times in this case.

Kieran quotes Myth 19 again which is debunked here:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

"Notice Alzo’s interesting tactic of concentrating on SMALLER forcings"
If 94% of Artic warming is caused by black carbon and mineral dust on snow it is hardly a smaller forcing, it is the main forcing.

"Alzo has not come up with a viable alternative to or critique of today’s theory, he just does not LIKE the current theory."
Correct! It doesn't fit the empirical observations which is what is required of a theory. When a theory doesn't fit the observations you find another. If there is no alternative theory it does not follow that you have to accept the failed theory. It's OK to say "we don't know", as there is a lot that scientists don't understand.

"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

Since a 0.4C rise in temperature occurred from about 1918-1940 when CO2 had barely changed from pre-industrial levels, warming had to be due to natural causes. So why not natural causes for the latter 20th century warming as well?

"Science is progressed by studying new data and hypothesis and testing the current paradigms repeatedly... 928 times in this case."
Thats enough for you is it? What if the 929th test failed? You would never know. Where do you draw the limit?

Here is a 100,000 dollar challenge concerning Global Warming!

http://www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

re:
"Science is progressed by studying new data and hypothesis and testing the current paradigms repeatedly... 928 times in this case."
Thats enough for you is it? What if the 929th test failed? You would never know. Where do you draw the limit?"

I drew the limit years ago. EP Odum, in his university textbook, "Fundamentals of Ecology" and Erlich, Erlich and Holdren, in their university textbook, "Ecoscience" discussed the data and the predicitons over 30 years ago. Since then, we've heard the same tired old farts stringing out the same inane, opaque conundrums about how global warming isn't proven.

Fact is, science never proves anything. Theories can, strictly speaking, be supported or disproven, but proof is left for the lawyers, philosphers and mathematicians, in their respective houses.

Or on their respective boats. "What if the 929th test failed?"

Yeah, what if? What if the 1,928th test failed?

I would say you are counting deck chairs on the Titantic, old son. Did you feel the jolt when we hit the iceberg? It's time to act. Maybe Perpetual Motion or Antigravity can save us, but the smart money (and my money)is on economic interventions which will slow greenhouse warming.

Alzo,
that next study should be out later this month, and the one after it the month after, etc and so on. When did I EVER say we should stop studying it? We should iron out those forcings and discover exactly what's happening with our earth to the best of our ability.

But as to your black carbon....

"As estimated by Hansen et al, 2005 (see figure), the total forcing from 1750 to 2000 is about 1.7 W/m2 (it is slightly smaller for 1850 to 2000, but that difference is a minor issue). The biggest warming factors are CO2 (1.5 W/m2), CH4 (0.6 W/m2, including indirect effects), CFCs (0.3), N2O (0.15), O3 (0.3), black carbon (0.8), and solar (0.3), and the important cooling factors are sulphate and nitrate aerosols (~-2.1, including direct and indriect effects), and land use (-0.15). Each of these terms has uncertainty associated with it (a lot for aerosol effects, less for the GHGs). So CO2's role compared to the net forcing is about 85% of the effect, but 37% compared to all warming effects. All well-mixed greenhouse gases are 64% of warming effects, and all anthropogenic forcings (everything except solar, volcanic effects have very small trends) are ~80% of the forcings (and are strongly positive). Even if solar trends were doubled, it would still only be less than half of the effect of CO2"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/#more-355

TotalEclipse dishes up fruitloop Karoli , rote learner Dr Karl and some quote from unrealclimate by nutter Hanson as well as some feeble effort to counter the ice core data which completely stuffs the CO2 argument. I suppose when you are as shallow as dishwater and cannot think for yourself you call for help from anywhere and anyone. As I always suspected, this issue of climate changing was never about science because it is a religious calling and big business.

Perhaps one should have a look at this disgraceful media bugs bunny, Dr Karl. He certainly has a bag of tricks because he rarely fails to associate himself with sucking gravity Newton and warped space Einstein, which for him seems to explain (mainly to impressionable children of course) everything or even the righteousness that theory can be bent to fit. He is a true blue supporter of the big bang cosmological stoooopidity with its entire zoo of fictional entities and it comes as no surprise that he is now prosthelizing climate alarm. Most unfortunate really but what bright, serious and responsible young person would desire to enter this obviously phony business? Think of the incredible waste of resources and talent spent on the big bang nonsense over almost one hundred years and still it explains nothing. However, when it does go off it is bound to go off with a bang.

Underlying this global warming debate is an unacknowledged fear ... a subconscious, irrational fear of THE END OF THE WORLD. We saw it in that ABC's loopy, laughably alarmist treatment of Durkin's doco and in the gleeful Jones's insertion of some crazy scientist making an analogy to the small quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere with the Ebola virus. This was all top shelf derangement.

It would all be a joke of cosmic proportions if it wasn't so tragic.

Kieran, I’d rather debate 1000 Alzo’s as at least he has made some attempts at rationale argument. You have the air of a “Roswell believer”, and are all noise and no substance. Go away.

Alzo, I was watching a documentary on the 9/11 conspiracy theorists last night and was struck by the similar strategies being used here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy

Just as in 9/11, the GW Skeptics ask us NOT to trust the experts, or even really read their material. If we just started with the experts in the first place, the experts could — sadly — explain the process of a plane crashing into a fortified building like the Pentagon and how the wings are forced back and align with the fuselage as the plane crumples through understood physics.

Instead conspiracy theorists ask us to focus on misleading details. They show us a detail such as a photo of the Pentagon, and flatter us by treating us as experts. “Look at the photo, what do you think? Could a plane really fit in that hole?” We’ve suddenly begun a discourse to do with scientific proof in an area outside of any of our expertise. We don’t notice that we’ve been derailed, and are now arguing points that are not open to argument. They are raising a debate where there is no debate.

Personally, I find it the height of arrogance to assume that we have discovered some mechanism that all the other climatologists have missed.

There have been 928 reports over 20 years, all agreeing with the basic premise.

I’ve linked to climatologists that have the authority to answer these questions. But I want to ask by what authority do you ask them, or are you dragging us into irrelevant conclusions and conspiracy theories, getting us to debate something that is not open to debate?

IPCC graph of “Black carbon on snow” shows it is a tiny forcing.
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/3280/snapshotil9.jpg

Page 3 and 6 of report at:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/inpress/Hansen_etal_1.html

It’s not that skeptics are stifling scientific debate, it’s that CONSPIRACY THEORISTS are trying to create a debate where there simply is none.

"But as to your black carbon....
"As estimated by Hansen et al, 2005 ..."

Well I guess it comes down to who's peer reviewed article you believe in.
The paper I cited was Flanner et. al. (2007), J. Geophys. Res.
A more recent paper (more up to date?) which found:
"The 1998 global land and sea-ice snowpack absorbed 0.60 and 0.23 W m2, respectively, because of direct BC/snow forcing."
Which is less than the 0.8W/m2 found by Hansen et al, 2005, however:
"The forcing is maximum coincidentally with snowmelt onset, triggering strong snow-albedo feedback in local springtime. Consequently, the “efficacy” of BC/snow forcing is more than THREE times greater than forcing by CO2."
So again its a lot more than just looking at radiative forcings as other factors offset or enhance the effect. In fact it seems if we were able to significantly reduce aerosol emissions, the CO2 "problem" wouldn't be worth worrying about. I wonder how Naomi Oreskes would have assessed this paper, oh I know "it agrees with the consensus".

Earlier quote by EN
"The reality is that the sun’s output is remarkably consistent and even the 11 year cycle only results in a tiny variation of the energy received on earth, and hardly registers with our climate system."

Another new paper by Camp & Tung, Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection, Geophysical Research Letters. They find that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2º C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note.
Wow so the 11 year solar cycle produces 0.2º C warming (global warming has only managed 0.6-0.7º C), I wonder how much warming the long term solar changes are responsible for? Solar irradiance reconstructions have shown an increase in the 11 year averaged irradiance between 1700 and 1980 of 4 W/m2, could be quite significant.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188993.php

Eclipse Now and Alzo. All we (humanity) can ask of zealots is that they not distort or misrepresent the science, as some (Durkin et al and OLO "experts")appear to be doing.

The science is complex and for some people very boring. Pseudo-scientists do more damage to science than they realise - this can not be good.

This is why I encourage you both to continue your discussion in other fora, more appropriate to the level of understanding and questioning that you obviously want to impart.

Ask yourselves, what are your motives for extending this complex science to a public Opinion forum limited by post and word counts?

Eclipse Now, while Alzo correctly cites current research, he is inadvertently (intentionally or not) misrepresenting the findings.

This is why there appears to be a lot of "debate" and a concerted effort to deny (or 'dumb-down') AGW on the one hand and delay any adaptation or mitigation efforts on the other - most often by people or groups who have a vested interest in "business as usual".

I am not saying Alzo (or sunnyboy for that matter) is complicit in this BAU approach. However, Alzo could have at least sent you the link to the paper he cited, he did not.

Try here:

http://www.amath.washington.edu/people/faculty/tung/publications.html

or more specifically,

http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf

or

http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/GRL-solar-07.pdf

For you to engage appropriately it would have been proper of him to direct you to the paper in question.

Perhaps Keiran looks toward resurrection in the coming millenium - in which case he or she can deny any fear of death, since it will not exist for "the chosen ones".

The rest of us, who may or may not fear death for ourselves, but would not wish it on our families or friends, or their descendents, have reminders that we need to do more than simply post opinions here:

For example, see:
http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/
5 Minutes to Midnight

"Overview
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock conveys how close humanity is to catastrophic destruction--the figurative midnight--and monitors the means humankind could use to obliterate itself. First and foremost, these include nuclear weapons, but they also encompass climate-changing technologies and new developments in the life sciences and nanotechnology that could inflict irrevocable harm.

"Nuclear
For four decades, the United States’ and the Soviet Union’s overt hostility coupled with their enormous nuclear arsenals defined the nuclear threat. … Today, the potential for an accidental or inadvertent nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia remains, with ... more than 1,000 warheads on high alert, ready to launch within tens of minutes. But a deliberate attack by Russia or the United States on the other is unthinkable.

Unfortunately, however, the possibility of a nuclear exchange ... remains. In 1999 and again in 2001, India and Pakistan threatened each other with nuclear arms. ... Nuclear terrorism also poses a new risk, as fissile materials remain unsecured in many parts of the world ...

"Environmental
Fossil-fuel technologies such as coal-burning plants powered the industrial revolution, bringing unparalleled economic prosperity to many parts of the world. In the 1950s, however, scientists began measuring year-to-year changes in the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere that they could relate to fossil fuel combustion, and they began to develop the implications for Earth’s temperature and for climate change.

Fifty years later, leading scientists agree that carbon-burning technologies continue to make Earth warmer at an unprecedented rate. ... The future looks even bleaker, as scientists continue to observe cascading effects on Earth’s complex ecosystems."

Alzo again trots out: “Don’t trust the experts! Listen to my little detail — taken out of all context — because there’s something worth debating here…” He ignores the fact that there is really no “debate” as such, just fine tuning around the edges.

On the sooty snow…
I think you are confusing local melting forcings with global temperature forcings. In my reading yesterday I came across a Hansen paper that admitted black carbon may be having a high local effect on polar and glacier melting. So when you quote:
“Consequently, the “efficacy” of BC/snow forcing is more than THREE times greater than forcing by CO2” you might be onto something… but it is about the effects of local melting, not TOTAL GLOBAL CLIMATE.

Can you comprehend the difference? No. Because then you ruin the perception that you might have comprehended what was being discussed by stating…

“In fact it seems if we were able to significantly reduce aerosol emissions, the CO2 "problem" wouldn't be worth worrying about. I wonder how Naomi Oreskes would have assessed this paper, oh I know "it agrees with the consensus".”

The efficacy of melting snow is one subject. Global climate change is another. Try and keep up.

On the spotty sun…
You really are confused by the solar forcings. The 11 year cycle is the MOST POWERFUL of the solar cycles, and the longer term 20 and 30 year cycles fade away into insignificance. For the latest studies in solar forcings try listening to:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1974497.htm

But 0.2 degrees is significant. First, remember that this paper is still being peer reviewed and responded to. Second, it’s a new numbers game on old data, not some startling new phenomenon they’ve just discovered. Third, can you please explain why the earth is still warming even though we approach the bottom of the 11 year solar-cycle (and should be 0.2 degrees cooler!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#Solar_irradiance

Oh… what was that? Some other forcing we have not considered yet? Something that acts more powerfully than solar forcings? Gee, I wonder…

AGW is real, but so are the solutions. See...
http://www.iaiconference.org/

TotalEclipse, I must say that the last type of person I'd be is some flighty conspiracy nut. I'm just a very down to earth practical realist, who at eight years of age walked out of Sunday School much to my mother's displeasure, because I found it unpleasant to be rote learning in wrong order little pieces of the biblical story and to receive a pretty colored stamp to put in a book as a reward. What I wanted to do on a Sunday, and with my time, was to play in the bush, gullies and hills that surrounded our home. These experiences in the bush aroused great curiosity about life that could be beautiful and chaotic, ancient and new, peaceful and cruel in the extreme as well as forever changing. It is not surprising that I believe that the universe is an infinite connected environment, not some closed mechanical system, that it was never created and is far from anthropocentric.

Sir Vivor, rather than a selfish and ignorant preoccupation with saving one's "soul" on what some call judgment day there resides in many people a will to truth driven by a curiosity as well as an altruism. This is the true spirit that vested interests like religious playpens and others do their best to poison. But behaviour results from controlling perceptions, not actions. Hence I don't live in some cosy playpen, am not arrogant to the natural world but have well developed crap detectors when it comes to much of human behaviour. Incidentally, I share many concerns like in 5 Minutes to Midnight. e.g. Before the detonation of the first nuclear bomb there was some prospect that it would ignite the whole of earth's atmosphere. A very scary thought indeed.

Davsab, I am not mixed up with any political or industry group which certainly sets me apart from yourself. However, most of my family and personal friends would place me quite a bit to the left which is where I usually vote and I am very much an environmentalist believing CO2 is beneficial.

"Alzo could have at least sent you the link to the paper he cited"
The author's name, the Journal's name and the title of the paper should be enough for anyone capable of posting a response.

"while Alzo correctly cites current research, he is inadvertently (intentionally or not) misrepresenting the findings."
Not sure how you can misrepresent the findings of this paper. A couple of more interesting quotes from this paper are:
"Our work establishes that the surface-temperature response is correlated with the solar-cycle forcing at over 95% confidence level. For comparison, a similar relationship between response and forcing has not been statistically established for the greenhouse global-warming problem."
No they just go for a 90% gut feeling...
and
"The spatial pattern of the warming is also of interest, and shows the polar amplification expected also for the greenhouse-warming problem."
Ooooh another broadside...
and best of all
"We will argue in a separate paper that the observed warming is caused mostly by the radiative heating (TSI minus the 15% absorbed by ozone in the stratosphere), when taking into account the positive climate feedbacks (a factor of 2–3) also expected for the greenhouse warming
problem."
Looking forward to that paper...

"remember that this paper is still being peer reviewed and responded to"
So are most of Hansen's papers. In fact this could be considered a response.

"I think you are confusing local melting forcings with global temperature forcings."
Not all of the globe is warming...the SH is cooling. Most of the "global" warming isn't global. If anything it should be called hemispheric warming or better yet mid to high northern latitude warming.

"an you please explain why the earth is still warming even though we approach the bottom of the 11 year solar-cycle (and should be 0.2 degrees cooler!)"
Its cooling as we speak...from the BOM "June 2007 was the coldest June recorded in Australia in the post 1950 period."

re Keiran's:
"I am very much an environmentalist believing CO2 is beneficial."

But there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

While carbon dioxide is good for plants, algae and bacteria which gain their energy by photosynthesis, these organisms are limited in their ability to keep pace with the current levels of CO2 production attributable to human activities. Likewise, the ocean is limited in its ability to absorb CO2 at a rate commensurate with current and projected "business as usual" anthropogenic CO2 production.

In the case of the oceans, increased absorption of CO2 may affect maritime acidity levels as it dissolves and changes into carbonic acid ( H2CO3 - which gives soft drinks some of their sourness and, under pressure, all of their fizz - the fizz is mainly CO2). This may in turn affect uptake of silicon and calcium into the shells of diatoms (a significant group of marine algae) and plankton, respectively. When the BAS doomsday report mentions "cascading effects", it is this sort of possibility which informs their concern. Reduced photosynthisis then results in reduced CO2 recycling into oxygen and carbohydrates for other parts of the food chain (like us). This is an example of a positive feedback cycle, a runaway process which makes bad even worse.

Keiran, I'm all for independent thought, but it is best informed by accepted and informed opinion. - I mentioned two excellent texts, in a prior post, which deal with the fundamentals of ecology. If you think ecology is more germane to our current situation than astrophysics, then I strongly advise you to inform yourself more thoroughly about accepted fact, opinion and the experimental support for the concerns of ecologists about anthropogenic influences on the carbon cycle.

Alzo is sadly employing the Machiavellian tool of the Conspiracy Theorists: if you’re going to tell a lie, make it a WHOPPER! He selectively quotes smaller chunks from the larger text to make them sound against AGW. Even their Abstract shows how Alzo’s exaggerating his case, but they explicitly spell it out on Page 3.

“This solar radiative forcing is about 1/20 that for doubling CO2 (_Q~3.7 Wm-2). Thus the annual rate of increase in radiative forcing of the lower atmosphere from solar min to solar max happens to be equivalent to that from a 1% per year increase in greenhouse gases, a rate commonly used in greenhouse-gas emission scenarios [Houghton and et al., 2001].”

Alzo’s been telling porkies. If we double greenhouse gases, the solar radiative forcing is only 1/20th the factor of the expected temperature increase. What the paper is arguing is that they have more accurately than ever before measured the minor solar fluctuation inside the background noise of EVER RISING TEMPERATURES! (Line 281).

This is to be expected from Alzo whose powers of comprehension failed to pick up that the “soot on snow” paper merely argued that soot has contributed a bit more to the SNOW MELTING (which was the topic of the paper) than CO2 — yet Alzo extrapolates out that the CO2 had NOTHING to do with it and by the way, that somehow means that CO2 does NOTHING to the climate, and the whole theory is wrong. What a load of codswallop.

Alzo, these are discussions of “how big are the minor forcings” by people that accept the overall theory. In the meantime, Alzo has still failed to explain why the OVERALL temperature of the earth (not just the 0.2) went UP after 2000 when the solar cycle went down. (Remembering that “the observed time lag in the solar-cycle response is small” Line 365).

Now, while Alzo tries to explain this, we can all be amused by the following paper which CONCLUSIVELY PROVES that the Solar cycle actually influences how many Republicans are in government.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/fun-with-correlations/#more-433

Eclipse Now, you're actually quoting from another paper but never mind.
"Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity."
versus
"Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean
difference projection"
So solar induced warming exhibits the same spatial warming patterns as CO2 induced warming including polar amplification. The 11 year cycle produces a 0.2C global temperature response from 0.19Wm2 over 5-6 years. What does this mean? It means a climate system that is very sensitive to changes in solar irradiance (and so far, fairly insensitive to CO2). Would not take much of a change in the long term solar irradiance trend to produce almost all of the "global" warming seen thus far. Take a look at the Lockwood and Frolich, Proc. R. Soc. A, 25 May, 2007 paper and you will see a long term trend in their solar reconstructions.

"argued that soot has contributed a bit more to the SNOW MELTING"
A lot more...up to 94% of it.

"Alzo extrapolates out that the CO2 had NOTHING to do with it"
Actually only extrapolated it has much less to do with it. Maybe as little as 6%.

"that somehow means that CO2 does NOTHING to the climate"
Just much less than touted by the Hansonites and the IPCC.

"explain why the OVERALL temperature of the earth (not just the 0.2) went UP after 2000 when the solar cycle went down."
They didn't go up...they stayed flat or declined slowly. See a nice graph here:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html

Oops. It turns out that 1998 wasn’t the hottest year on record for the US, after all. I wonder where the press releases for this correction are? Why were the 1930's so warm?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880#more-1880

“Science is apolitical, and when it has submitted to political pressure in the past, it has been at great human cost.”

This is the very reason the IPCC does not change the science to suit the policy makers. Unfortunately, politicians exert a great deal of pressure on scientists even to the extent of “gagging” them from commenting on climate change or delaying/refusing their research funding – we have seen it here in Australia (Pearman) and also in the Bush Administration (Hansen).

If scientists submit to the politics of the Bush and Howard administrations, it will be at great human cost – I agree with Ian Plimer in this respect.

As far as zealots, alzo seems to be one that distorts the science to suit his own opinions.

Talk about global warming zealots stifling debate, check out this week’s Newsweek article,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

Here is an extract,
Every effort to pass climate legislation during the George W. Bush years was stopped in its tracks … Tim Profeta, now director of an environmental-policy institute at Duke University "I was hearing the basic argument of the skeptics—a brilliant strategy to go after the science. And it was working" …
Killing bills in Congress was only one prong of the denial machine's campaign. It also had to keep public opinion from demanding action on greenhouse emissions, and that meant careful management of what federal scientists and officials wrote and said. "If they presented the science honestly, it would have brought public pressure for action," says Rick Piltz, who joined the federal Climate Science Program in 1995 ...
By appointing former coal and oil lobbyists to key jobs overseeing climate policy, he found, the administration made sure that didn't happen. Following the playbook laid out at the 1998 meeting at the American Petroleum Institute, officials made sure that every report and speech cast climate science as dodgy, uncertain, controversial—and therefore no basis for making policy ...
Ex-oil lobbyist Philip Cooney, working for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as "lack of understanding" and "considerable uncertainty." A short section on climate in another report was cut entirely. The White House "directed us to remove all mentions of it," says Piltz, who resigned in protest. An oil lobbyist faxed Cooney, "You are doing a great job."

Bush and his cronies have big ties to the fossil fuel industry, so does Howard and his mates - they are the real zealots.

That’s a great link Q&A and parts of it document my FAVOURITE scientist of the “Swindle” flavour, Fred Singer. He’s the former “tobacco is good for you” scientist that saw a dollar in defending big corporations with bad science. He just can’t kick the habit.

For more on Singer see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1

Alzo, I’m glad I accidentally read the “sister study” by the same authors. They clearly state that solar fluctuations amount to only…
“1/20 that for doubling CO2 (_Q~3.7 Wm-2).”

What? If CO2 doubles, it will be 20 times more significant than solar cycles? Does that mean it's 10 times more significant now?
“Gee, I — wonder — where — Alzo’s — argument — has — gone?”

Now it seems you are resorting to that other well known Machiavellian tactic for telling lies. Don’t just tell them big, repeat them OFTEN because then it might stick. Just keep repeating that the temperature is going down, really indignantly if you can, and someone might believe you.

“The website[1] of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration contains detailed data of the annual land and ocean temperature since 1880.[2]

Currently every one of the last 13 years (1994-2006) is one of the warmest 17 on record. These 17 warmest years could be the warmest years for the last several thousand years according to the temperature record, not just since 1880, but the most recent data is the most accurate.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880

So Alzo, your move. Quote some crank that doesn’t like these records. I bet most Climatologists use them, but we can’t speak of the experts, can we? We’ve got to engage YOUR reading of the data, because YOU insist that there is a debate here. ;-)

Meanwhile, your problem with solar activity diverging from climate temperatures has returned big time. If the solar 11 year cycle ONLY builds up 0.2 degrees and then sinks back down again, why are 13 of the last 17 the hottest on record? Why is there this multi-decade swing upwards when the solar cycle should return everything to “normal” about half the time?

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188993.php

"This is the very reason the IPCC does not change the science to suit the policy makers. "
I guess thats why they released the SPM before the scientific report.

"Bush and his cronies have big ties to the fossil fuel industry, so does Howard and his mates - they are the real zealots."
Ooooh yes shadows lurking behind every door....

"They clearly state that solar fluctuations amount to only…
“1/20 that for doubling CO2 (_Q~3.7 Wm-2).”"
Yes and they still produce 0.2C change in the global climate. So a longer term trend over the 20th century produces a larger and more sustained warming....too simple?

"These 17 warmest years could be the warmest years for the last several thousand years"
Only if you believe that broken and dodgy hockeystick study.

"If the solar 11 year cycle ONLY builds up 0.2 degrees and then sinks back down again, why are 13 of the last 17 the hottest on record? Why is there this multi-decade swing upwards when the solar cycle should return everything to “normal” about half the time?"
I think you've missed the point entirely, ie. there has been a large increase in solar activity over the 20th century. The 11 year cycle temperature change of 0.2C just demonstrates how sensitive the climate system is to solar changes.

Problem is Alzo, you were not arguing the longer term trends. You were just trying to make a study say something it did not. You stripped stuff out of context when the authors clearly believe in Global Warming.

I guess they simply remembered that “correlation does not prove causation”.

Yes, just looking at the overall historical graph (below) over 400 years there appears to our inexpert eyes a slight build up of solar activity over the last century but these are changes within tiny forcings. Maybe they need to flatten the graph right out to show the actual impact! (Just a smidge off zilch).

Problems:
A/ Overall activity trends drop just when you need it to rise over the last 13 record breaking hot years.

B/ The same discrepancy you try to pin on CO2 exists for your solar theory. Global temperatures dropped after WW2 through the 50’s! This right when solar activity was highest in the last 400 years!

Correlation is not that good anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers.png
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11639

C/ It doesn’t matter anyway

Wikipedia: “There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ; recent results suggest about 0.1% variation over the last 2000 years.[4] The combination of solar variation and volcanic effects has very likely been the cause of some climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum. A 2006 study and review of existing literature, published in Nature, determined that there has been no net increase in solar brightness since the mid 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity

D/ You’re being arrogant again.

928 studies by climatologists and climatological organizations ALL forgot to look at the sun the way you have. Only YOU have it right. (Insert your biggest, cheesiest wink possible).

Snowbird: You’ve just quoted a very vague and factually incorrect plea to watch “Swindle” and “make up your own mind”, the plea of a Conspiracy theorist to a gullible audience. Why?

"Problem is Alzo, you were not arguing the longer term trends. "
Err yes I was...was using the 11 year cycle sensitivity to demonstrate how much more sensitive the climate system is to solar effects than CO2. I haven't even tried to suggest a mechanism for the solar effect, although I think Svensmark is on the money.

"Yes, just looking at the overall historical graph (below) over 400 years there appears to our inexpert eyes a slight build up of solar activity over the last century but these are changes within tiny forcings."
Maybe this image shows it more clearly...
http://www.john-daly.com/foukal.gif

"A/ Overall activity trends drop just when you need it to rise over the last 13 record breaking hot years."
Again, global temperatures are not rising and haven't been since 2000.

"B/ Correlation is not that good anyway."
Seems better than the CO2 correlation.

"C/ It doesn’t matter anyway"
According to you

D/ You’re being arrogant again.
Questioning a scientific hypothesis is arrogant? Glad you're not a teacher/lecturer.

For all those who whinge about Australian policymakers sitting on their hands with respect to GW, maybe its not such a bad idea

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22213422-601,00.html

"THE head of the world's leading climate change organisation has backed the Howard Government's decision to defer setting a long-term target for reducing greenhouse emissions until the full facts are known.

Despite widespread criticism of the Government's decision last month to defer its decision on cutting emissions until next year, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said yesterday he agreed with the approach.

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, in Canberra to meet government officials, said it was critical that policies to address climate change be rolled out only after informed debate based on rational thinking and rigorous analysis of the impact of different options.

"Otherwise one might come up with a lot of emotional and political responses that may or may not be the best, and I think in a democracy it's important to see there is an informed debate in officialdom as well as in the public," Dr Pachauri told The Australian yesterday. "

People who distort information to bolster their own beliefs are propagandists, they are definitely not scientists. Alzo says “for all those who whinge about Australian policymakers sitting on their hands with respect to GW, maybe it’s not such a bad idea” and then points to the chair of the IPCC.

Rajendra Pachauri also said today,

“One of the most serious aspects of climate change is the equity dimensions of the problem. The largest responsibility for the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere lies with the developed countries, but the worst impacts and the highest vulnerability applies to several developing countries …

The world has provided hardly any resources for adaptation measures in the most vulnerable countries, such as the small island developing states where the very survival of human beings is at stake …

The popular approach in developing countries is to emphasise the stand that their governments cannot and will not accept any targets or commitments to limit emissions …

May I also say that the world and posterity demand that Australia also seize this opportunity for reassessing its position and act resolutely on the basis of the scientific evidence and actual observations to chart out a new path of development. Indeed, Australia can be a major example for other developed countries and particularly for its neighbours in Asia that are emerging rapidly at various stages of development towards economic prosperity …”

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/lead-by-example-on-climate-change/2007/08/09/1186530529171.html

As for the IPCC, it has been summarised as,
“The bottom line is that the IPCC's SPMs are "consensus documents," meaning that all member governments need to agree to the science described in them. Countries that want to do nothing about climate change have incentives to water down the SPMs, while countries that want strong responses have incentives to highlight potential disasters.

And the scientists have an important veto: they can walk out and declare that one side or another is trying to subvert the science. All countries have incentives to be seen as credible on this issue, and so cannot afford to be designated as anti-science.”
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=7A69E4EE-E7F2-99DF-303CDE51F7DD6BBA

I am becoming more familiar with the dirty politics of climate change thanks to the information super highway. I came across this in “Readings Monthly”;

“Guy Pearse’s revelations about Australia’s ‘greenhouse mafia’ made headlines. In High & Dry, this Liberal Party insider shows why John Howard’s climate change policy is reckless, how it came about, and who is behind it. In this damning account, Liberal Party member, lobbyist and former Howard government advisor Guy Pearse takes us behind the rhetoric he once helped write. He reveals that the government has no plans whatsoever to reduce Australia’s emissions, and explains why this is bad for Australia’s economy. He exposes a prime minister wilfully blind to Australia’s real interests – a man who has allowed climate change policy to be dictated by a small group of Australia’s biggest polluters and the lobbyists they fund.”

Then I ‘googled’ Guy Pearse and came up with this article,

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22058376-5006348,00.html

And then this,
http://www.highanddry.com.au/extract.cfm

After reading this thread in full I am not surprised that it is the 'sceptic zealots' that are stifling scientific debate, contrary to Ian Plimer's assertions.

Davsab, you say “I found it very revealing that not one OLO global warming ‘sceptic’ had anything to say about Guy Pearse’s book High and Dry … our problem is not really about the science, but the power and control games of politicians and vested interest groups in maintaining the status quo, whose mantra is deny and delay at all costs.” YOU GOT THAT RIGHT! So, why do you think people like Alzo won’t comment on Guy Pearse’s revelations?

Maybe the answer lies in the fact that he links to John Daly who was a doyen of the Lavoisier Group, a well known global warming sceptic crank tank that holds sway with the Australian Govt.

Alzo, Dr Pachauri is very diplomatic and I think he would have to be to get all countries working to solve a world problem. Maybe this is why Howard and Bush are changing their attitude to global warming.

Eclipse Now, my commiserations, just hang in there.

Good points Q&A, but the solar data Alzo quotes is not too far wrong, but is a little “bumped” to emphasise certain trends inaccurately. It is completely out of date. It’s the 1989 graph from Foukal and Lean.

Various calibrations from the satellite data has occurred since then, and of course, it misses the last 18 years of solar activity, and has nothing to do with the last 13 years in a row being in the top 17 of the hottest on record.
That is, since the very beginning of record keeping, there are only 4 other freakishly hot years that match the last 13 in a row!

It exaggerates certain aspects that can be more easily verified by the latest data and studies using the best technology.

How you can say it correlates better than Co2 when it shares one discrepancy and has others (like recent temperatures going up and solar going down) just mystifies me. It does not correlate at all better, especially when the climatology communicate accept SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS for when CO2 does NOT correlate.

Also: If the sun affected climate, why is the warming occurring more at night, and more in winter? That sounds more like some atmospheric effect to me than the solar cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

For the VERY latest report to date on solar activity, try this ABC Science Show
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1974497.htm

OR JJJ — Hack covers the solar stuff quite well.
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s1979620.htm

http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

I stand by my links above, and by points A-D. Try again Alzo.

“Questioning a scientific hypothesis is arrogant? Glad you're not a teacher/lecturer.”
If I was a teacher on this subject I would gladly answer any genuine questions. But don’t pretend that you are asking questions.

You are making an assertion! You imply that because YOU have questions the whole theory is bunk and still under debate. You’re the stubborn kid down the back that asks petulant questions because he was forced to take the class and doesn’t want to be there, and refuses to learn a thing. You make fun of the experts and misread stuff on purpose.

There is reasonable evidence that global warming is anthropogenic because we can only really find it in the human mind where it is usually created from careless data acquisition and dodgy data processing. ( i.e. When you have a virtual monopoly of research funding who needs integrity?)

The physics of Co2.
13 of the 17 hottest years on record, in a row, back to back.
928 studies over 20 years.
Yet you think it’s a construct.

Kieran, you’re an internet troll. Your post has no value or point, except trying to provoke a reaction. So here’s one…

Of COURSE Margaret Thatcher’s money established the IPCC and controls all of the worldwide 928 studies over 20 years. Of COURSE the M.I.B (Meteorologists in Black) bought out all the climatologists. Of course this includes all government bodies — no matter what nation, — and all corporately funded universities — worldwide — and every independent climatologist that has ever written on climate science. Even celebrity scientists like Dr Karl have been paid a visit by the M.I.B.

Tell us Kieran, is your tinfoil hat a tall pointy cone-head, or do you go for the “Chrome Dome”? I'm guessing the Pointy Cone-head so that it can channel the universal inter-connectedness of everything straight into your brain.

I think I'll put mine on too.

Ommmmmmmmmmmmmm

Wow, I can smell the cosmos dude, and the stardust is coming in loud and clear like a classic David Austen rose, with just a hint of manure underneath. Or is that Bull....?

OLO posters could outstay the mudlarks in a wet Melbourne Cup race! Problem is – other posters seem to have given up after one circuit. Why?

Could it be they want to join another race like the one being run by Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC chair) here last week, or the APEC Derby in Sydney next month, before the ‘Federal erection Cup’, or the UNFCCC Marathon starting in December?

Hey, I don’t mind a stoush now and then, but shouldn’t the discussion now be about “impacts, adaptation and vulnerability” or “mitigation of GHG” as reported by the IPCC’s WG2 and WG3 reports? The scientists will always review and update their findings (science and technology is getting better all the time). For our stifling 2 cents worth, we're not going to impact on them like their findings are going to impact on us!

Shouldn't we be more concerned about things like this?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22224118-30417,00.html

It’s a lot of bandwidth, but probably not as much as displayed by some in this thread.

http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/

Any comments?

Aside:
Snowbird (Thomas?) from Canada – you have a great country, even ratified Kyoto and want to play a significant part in post-Kyoto … onyer! Sorry I can’t say the same for Oz :(

You say “global warming alarmists, such as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” They’re not really; if anything they are conservative due to the IPCC process and the political posturing of your southern neighbours and developing China. If you want to label alarmist scientists, ok (e.g. Jim Hansen, Bob Carter), but the IPCC only assesses the abundant scientific literature out there.

You do a one-liner linking “Swindle” – what’s your point? “Our ABC” and Oz has been there and done it. Both it and Al Gore’s job are both propaganda pieces. Thing is, the latter is closest to the inconvenient truth, the former a snow-job.

Had a closer look at your link – I am a fan of “star wars” (and the different layers of meaning embedded therein, a true classic) – so where do you stand, dark side or Jedi?

Eclipse Now, isn’t it amazing how some people want to distort the scientific findings?
More on your argument is here

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=LJ840672D&news_headline=global_warming_is_man-made_claims_study

Make of it as you will.
BTW, do you have any comment on Guy Pearse and his book, I’m getting no comment from GW sceptics, maybe another symptom of denial?

Have a look at:
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/810/3?etoc

"Come Shine, Come Rain
By Phil Berardelli
ScienceNOW Daily News
10 August 2007

The item addresses the correlation between the 11 year sunspot cycle and rainfall intensity and water level of Lake Victoria, in that region of East Africa.

Note that the article does not offer the corellation as "disproving" global warming. It says that:

"If the evidence holds up, sunspots could prove a valuable tool for predicting local weather patterns."

The first paragraph of the article states:

"These days, it seems a safe bet to blame everything from melting glaciers to mixed-up bird migrations on human-induced global warming. But a new study serves as a reminder that not every weather development is our fault. An international team has linked rainfall intensity in East Africa to the 11-year sunspot cycle. If confirmed, the findings would represent an example of a long-standing climate pattern that remains unaffected by greenhouse gas buildup."

No evidence that global warming zealots are stifling debate in AAAS Science magazine.

Beautiful Googling Q&A.
I'm putting both that link and the Pearse stuff up on my own blog. Congratulations on a very, very tidy summary! What do you say to this Alzo?

"Prof Tung says his findings provide important real-world evidence climate model predictions of global warming are correct....

For instance they show the temperature changes are two to three times as strong in polar regions. On the face of it this is surprising because the variation in solar radiation is greatest in the tropics.

However, Prof Tung says "it reinforces the idea of melting ice as an amplification mechanism in the climate-change models."

What will excite climate scientists most is Prof Tung and his team are the first to measure directly how a given change in the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere translates into a change in temperature.
...
In an as yet unpublished paper posted on Prof Tung's website he says this shows a doubling of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause a warming of between 2.3 and 4.1 degrees centigrade within about a year.

This makes the lower estimates of some models of climate change "unlikely."

Prof Tung stresses this immediate warming is almost certain to be an underestimate of the overall effect of greenhouse gases because extra warming is delayed due to the deep ocean heating up only slowly.

He said: "But our findings give a lower bound to the atmosphere's climate sensitivity that we have not had before."

Climate modeller Peter Cox from the University of Exeter says Prof Tung has shown, without recourse to climate models, that a doubling of carbon dioxide would cause at least 2 degrees centigrade of warming "which is considered by many to be the threshold of dangerous climate change."

Thanks Alzo, that's a great paper you've quoted. It shows conclusive evidence that AGW is even more accurately measured, and is even WORSE than predicted. Sweet dreams.

Davsab is the one you should be congratulating; he put you/me/everybody onto Tung’s website, the next paper to be released and then Alzo’s consummate piece mentioned to you, in that order. All I did was search for Tung in ‘news’ and bingo, Alzo exposed again for distorting and misrepresenting the scientific findings of experts. Either that or he is just ‘off with the fairies’. I think the former – a typical non-believer’s strategy (they don’t like being called ‘denier’ for some reason).

Sir Vivor, an interesting article that doesn’t stifle debate. As the world’s atmosphere warms (more energy and moisture) we are going to experience more extreme ‘weather events’. See the WG2 report on how each region is affected. The IPCC also say that some areas are going to benefit in the short term from global warming but overall there are going to be some very major problems, particularly in the longer term.

I am interested in any comments about the IPCC scenarios (and that is all that they are) because what will happen in the future will be determined by what we do now and more importantly how much we can reduce GHG in the future.

Keiran, I am also an environmentalist, slightly left of centre. Thing is, being an environmentalist doesn’t have to tie you to any political ideology – look at Guy Pearse. Having said that, some greenies don’t know what it means to be real environmentalists and some environmentalists don’t know either.

There is very convincing evidence that global warming is anthropogenic because the science is very good today. Very, very few scientists are careless or dodgy; the vast majority have a very high degree of integrity, even the genuine sceptics or so called contrarians. Bad press, poor PR and irresponsible media muddy the waters, as do non-scientists.

Funding is important, and it comes from a wide range of sources, including big-business and the fossil fuel lobby, this can’t be denied – and a lot comes from governments and philanthropists. It’s only a problem when the ‘income’ dictates the ‘outcome’, check this for example,

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-emitside12aug12,1,92299.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Cheers

"You stripped stuff out of context when the authors clearly believe in Global Warming."
I note you use the word "believe" here. Very appropriate as belief is required when looking at contradictory evidence.

"That is, since the very beginning of record keeping, there are only 4 other freakishly hot years that match the last 13 in a row!"
You mean since 1850...and the depths of the Little Ice Age....wow.

"If the sun affected climate, why is the warming occurring more at night, and more in winter?"
How do you know that the warming is occurring more at night? From minimum temperatures? Minimum temperatures can be affected by solar influences. Daily minimum temperatures typically occur in daytime (some time after dawn) and therefore will be effected by daytime heating.

"You imply that because YOU have questions the whole theory is bunk"
No I am implying that before we implement any major changes in lifestyle, we have proof positive that we humans are the cause of the recent mild warming.

"Good points Q&A"
"Beautiful Googling Q&A."
"Congratulations on a very, very tidy summary!"
"Sweet dreams."
Guys, get a room!

"Davsab is the one you should be congratulating"
Davsab, stop congratulating yourself and please, nobody is interested in Guy Pearse’s book "Flying High"

"a typical non-believer’s strategy (they don’t like being called ‘denier’ for some reason)"
Again the term "believer", take the leap of faith, Rev James Hansen accepts all.
I don't mind being called a denier, only evidence will cause me to change my mind.

Q&A, I don't need to read this Pearse's money making effort to know what the rodent has been up to all these years, and i only included some of my personal leanings and environmental philosophy to counter the stereotypical view that when it comes to the natural changing of climate these huge solar/cosmic trends do not give a hoot even if you believe you smell like a rose. We are as some bod has put it but a fart in a hurricane by comparison.

However, for sustainability the most rational source of power we need to focus on is the abundant solar rather than burning things like finite resources. Whilst we are burning stuff the resulting co2 can be put to obviously beneficial uses greening the planet. I have sometimes suggested to the rote learning religious tribe that their teddy(i.e. god) should have come to earth as the good gardener ...... rather than the good shepherd that has given us maladaptive warring mobs plus the desertification of the landscape. But if we look around now, we see that much is being done to improve the ecology and i'd just like to single out Peter Andrews as a reasonable example.

For those people interested in solar/cosmic ideas that drive earth's climate which may help focus attention on sustainable energy systems ponder on the idea that in an electrical universe there may in fact be electrical answers.

The electric sun hypothesis at ...... (Very interesting although for myself i have some skeptical thoughts at the moment on this idea that the sun may in fact be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents. )
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

A pretty good graphical comparison of cycles 21, 22 and 23 (last update July 23, 2007)]
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cyclcomp.html

I said: "That is, since the very beginning of record keeping, there are only 4 other freakishly hot years that match the last 13 in a row!"
You said: You mean since 1850...and the depths of the Little Ice Age....wow.

Yeah, wow! 4 other events over 157 years = 2.5% chance, and we've had 13 in a ROW! Explain that Denier boy, especially as the solar activity wanes. Oh, and also explain your Denial of the temperatures increasing. Oh, and everything else you don't bother to reply to when FOUND OUT!

"How do you know that the warming is occurring more at night?"
We measure it, it's simply true, deal with it.

"You imply that because YOU have questions the whole theory is bunk"
No I am implying that before we implement any major changes in lifestyle, we have proof positive that we humans are the cause of the recent mild warming.

No, you are denying the obvious when 928 studies over 20 years have confirmed the obvious. What, do you work for a coal company or something? How much evidence do you NEED!

"Good points Q&A"
"Beautiful Googling Q&A."
"Congratulations on a very, very tidy summary!"
"Sweet dreams."
Guys, get a room!

Yeah, thanks for that Alzo... I was just expressing my relief that someone else was bothering to counter your absolutely intentional LIES!

Davsab, stop congratulating yourself and please, nobody is interested in Guy Pearse’s book "Flying High"

Sorry Alzo, but I am!

"I don't mind being called a denier, only evidence will cause me to change my mind."

This one really cracked me up Alzo, you're a laugh. Sorry, I just have to clarify... you mean observable empirically tested evidence, documented and reported on by clear-minded, factual, precise scientists, will actually change your mind? REALLY? I just SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO believe someone who quotes an even MORE alarmist AGW paper as denying it's truth.

The reality is this... we have 10 years to make some significant changes, and if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. Stand aside!

"Sorry, I just have to clarify... you mean observable empirically tested evidence, documented and reported on by clear-minded, factual, precise scientists, will actually change your mind?"
Yep in a second.

"The reality is this... we have 10 years to make some significant changes, and if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem."
Well I maybe part of the problem but I am not alone. A 2007 ACNielsen survey found that:
"The good news is that nine out of 10 people globally are aware of global warming. The bad news is that only over half of them (57%) consider it a 'very serious problem'"
and also
"Half the world’s population (50%) said global warming is a result of human actions"
So no, I will not step aside and neither I imagine will a large part of the rest of the global population. I have no problems with making sensible changes, your term "significant" is the scary part. If the changes are hysterical, emotional reactions to a perceived threat then I will simply vote against them, as is my right. I suspect the voting majority will only accept a certain level of change to their lifestyles without seeing some more concrete proof. If global temperatures start to rise and continue for the next 20-30 years then that may be enough. If temperatures continue to stay in stasis as they have since 2000 or even start to decline then I can't see much change occurring.

Sounds like you guys have a bit more convincing to do yet.

Now this is a hilarious turn around. After all that ranting against science not being a consensus, and all my arguing that scientists were fiercely independent and competitive and trying to out-do each other and disprove each other, and yet still we have 928 reports over 20 years all confirming Global Warming:-
1/ Alzo says he will believe it in a second if he sees any evidence. (I submit the 928 reports, starting with the IPCC. Your second is up.)

2/ Alzo appeals to the lowest common denominator — public opinion. There’s no consensus in the PUBLIC, therefore there’s no climate risks in reality.

“If global temperatures start to rise and continue for the next 20-30 years then that may be enough.”
The last 50 not good enough for you?

Finally, Alzo repeats the lie…
“If temperatures continue to stay in stasis as they have since 2000 or even start to decline then I can't see much change occurring.”
Liar liar pants on fire. You’ve already been caught out, I don’t know why you bother. When you're in a hole Alzo, the solution to getting out is to stop digging.

The reality is that various ecosystems are already struggling to move towards the poles, food chains are being disrupted, other species are retreating up mountains to cooler climates, and Alzo wants to see more evidence?

Ok Alzo, you are a denier - that is your choice.

I came across a site that attracts some serious discussion (debate if you want) and was very impressed by this particular post ,

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/the_denial_industry.php#comment-528273

Seriously, I would really like to know what people think of Jeff’s posts.

It's worth reading because it addresses some of the issues raised here.

Alzo, “nobody is interested in Guy Pearse’s book”, please tell us why.

Ok, a bit of fun,
Rev Hansen or Rev Carter, two sides of the same coin.

Pope Bozo (Big G) is the omnipresent science expert that wants evidence? Evidence of what in particular? How much evidence? How do you want the evidence measured? Who do you want the evidence to come from? What confidence levels? Who be da judge?

Cheers,
Elizabeth

PS
Keiran, as far as Pearse and his book about “climate change” in Australia (which people seem to want to put their head in the sand about), it is impossible to argue against a proposition unless you have read the proposition. This is fundamental in any research and is important if you want to have a valid opinion. So, I am perplexed by your response.

Sorry Keiran, you lost me on this “electric sun” stuff – I tried. But I am with you on sustainability, we only have one planet.

The denial industry is alive and well as we yet again see more evidence. Wolfowitz 'tried to censor World Bank on climate change' – why shouldn’t we be surprised?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2861732.ece

“The Bush administration has consistently thwarted efforts by the World Bank to include global warming in its calculations when considering whether to approve major investments in industry and infrastructure, according to documents made public through a watchdog yesterday.

On one occasion, the White House's pointman at the bank, the now disgraced Paul Wolfowitz, personally intervened to remove the words "climate change" from the title of a bank progress report and ordered changes to the text of the report to shift the focus away from global warming.

But the issue predates Mr Wolfowitz's appointment as president of the bank in June 2005. According to the Government Accountability Project (GAP), which has tracked efforts to censor debate on global warming, environmental specialists at the World Bank tried unsuccessfully to press for consideration of greenhouse- gas emissions in a paper written - but never published - in 2002.

It was politics that prevented the publication of that paper, according to one senior bank insider who spoke to the Los Angeles Times, and politics that has been the principal obstacle to progress since.

Only now, with the Bush (and Howard) administration on the ropes politically and the scientific evidence for global warming reaching such critical mass that even President George Bush (and Prime Minister John Howard) has been forced to acknowledge its reality …”

It seems Bozo is not the only one suffering from paranoia.

"On December 3, 2004, Dr. Naomi Oreskes from the University of California analysed 928 scientific papers that dealt with climate change"
"928 papers by the experts in this field "
"There have been 928 reports over 20 years, all agreeing with the basic premise."
"928 studies by climatologists and climatological organizations"
"928 studies over 20 years."
"928 studies over 20 years"
"when 928 studies over 20 years have confirmed the obvious"
"and yet still we have 928 reports over 20 years all confirming Global Warming"
Wooo! This guy is setting some sort of broken record here.
Please stop saying the same thing over and over, repetition (or mantras if you prefer) do not make something so.
The Oreskes study has been well and truly discredited and she admits it herself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes

"A flaw in the essay was, as Oreskes later conceded, that the keywords searched weren’t “climate change”, but “global climate change”. The search was also restricted to certain sections of the database that were not listed in the essay."

"The last 50 not good enough for you?"
No they're not, as it is ambiguous what is causing the warming.

"Liar liar pants on fire."
It is hard to debate with children.

"The reality is that various ecosystems are already struggling to move towards the poles, food chains are being disrupted, other species are retreating up mountains to cooler climates, and Alzo wants to see more evidence?"
How about some papers saying this instead of your hearsay.

Alzo, your pants are on fire AGAIN! (The best strategy for this is to roll over and over on the ground, and not fan them into flames by posting here again).

Other than some quibbling over her search parameters, the article you refer to clearly also shows that the critics of her study quote NON-PEER REVIEWED WORK by Big oil (propaganda pieces) and that later the chief critic withdrew his claims!

"Regardless, many critical readers of Peiser's list have claimed that most of the papers he cites do not in fact contest the IPCC's position on Anthopogenic Climate Change. Dr. Peiser has recently conceded in a letter to the Australian Media Watch that he no longer maintains parts of his criticisms. [3]"

Sorry dude, 928 papers over 20 years remains.

"A University of Texas press release says Parmesan and Yohe conducted an extensive global statistical analysis, examining the behaviors of a wide range of plant and animal species in North America and Europe. In studying data accumulated over several decades, they found that species such as birds, butterflies and alpine herbs had shifted their habitats northward an average of 6 kilometers per decade, or to higher altitudes of 6 meters per decade.

Other species have adjusted behaviors, in an apparent response to warmer temperatures. Migratory birds, amphibians and other animals are breeding earlier in the spring, and plants are blooming earlier, according to the Parmesan-Yohe study. In all, the researchers say that
global warming has accounted for a shift to an earlier spring for 677 species studied. "

PDF at...
http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/global_warming030101.pdf

"Sorry dude, 928 papers over 20 years remains."
I think you'll find there is a lot more than that. Don't be sorry, its not your fault.

"In all, the researchers say that
global warming has accounted for a shift to an earlier spring for 677 species studied."
A natural warming would produce this too...

Alzo,
You have failed to understand what I was saying above just as you failed to quote the Tung study correctly, or even the Oreskes wiki honestly. Do you have a fundamental problem with comprehension?

I was saying I was sorry FOR YOU not apologizing to you! Not only do the 928 peer reviewed studies REMAIN CREDIBLE despite your attempted criticism, they comprise the very empirical data — VERIFIABLE FACTS — that you said would change your mind. But no, you didn’t really mean that, did you?

More scientists than the climatologists have studied these studies, and so we have a letter of 11 thousand scientific signatures demanding the Bush administration take action.

So, at the risk of being repetitious, the 928 peer reviewed reports by climatologists confirming man-made Global Warming over 20 years is just fine with my worldview, how is yours doing? ;-)

Now, on the threat to ecologies we are witnessing right now…

I said: "In all, the researchers say that global warming has accounted for a shift to an earlier spring for 677 species studied."
You said: “A natural warming would produce this too...”

The problem for you is that you deny the earth is warming. “What a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”.

Either all those plant, animal, and insect species are having their timing thrown out of whack by higher temperatures or not. Alzo, this is serious. There are caterpillar and tree leaf systems that are being thrown out. The caterpillars cannot feed on the spring shoots soon enough, and the decreased moths in future seasons will throw out the entire food chain of North American birds and all sorts of other impacts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Ecosystems

So here’s the thing…

Either you were lying about temperatures being static to protect your solar driver theory — so we can’t believe a single word you are saying (again) — or temperatures ARE INDEED rising which is devastating to your solar hypothesis. Which is it?

"you failed to quote the Tung study correctly"
Actually I was looking more at their results than their "beliefs". The results indicate that the Earth is particularly sensitive to solar irradiance changes. What they "believe" isn't actually relevant.

"On December 3, 2004, Dr. Naomi Oreskes from the University of California analysed 928 scientific papers that dealt with "climate change", and that had been published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. Not one of these 928 papers disagreed with the consensus position, even though they may have disagreed in minor details."
She musn't have looked too hard. After a very quick search using Google Scholar I came up with a paper that disagreed with the consensus opion.
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/CRpaperACTUALNov01.pdf

There are probably many others. The whole idea of the Oreskes' paper isn't even scientific as it is such a subjective topic. I'm surprised it was accepted in any credible publication.

"The problem for you is that you deny the earth is warming"
I don't deny that the earth has warmed about 0.6C since 1880. I do deny that the warming is continuing, as it hasn't since 2000. I also question how much of a role CO2 plays.

Never fear though "Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record, scientists reported on Thursday."
Should be fun to watch and when it doesn't eventuate they will change it to 2019, and so on.
http://sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=global-warming-will-step&chanId=sa003&modsrc=reuters

Also black carbon rears its ugly head again. Seems it may be responsible for a lot of that artic/Greenland warming in the 1930's.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070809172126.htm

Looks like Lindzen's Iris effect isn't dead yet either. Who would have thought large negative feedbacks could occur in a stable climate system? If only the GCM's contained some (any).
“To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent,” Spencer said.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/08/14/the-iris-opens-again/

Your Tung “CO2 belief v solar science” dichotomy is false. They “believe” as scientists that it was the CO2 THAT INCREASED THE 11 year solar cycle EFFECT! You can’t claim the study proves enormous sensitivity to the sun, because it proves exactly the opposite.

Similar problems with your ability to read come up with the “paper” you quote to challenge Oreskes… in that you obviously didn’t comprehend the last lines of their abstract.

“The purpose of such a limited review of the deficiencies of climate model physics and the use of GCMs is to illuminate areas for improvement. Our review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate.”

Not only that, none of them were climatologists and all have links to Big oil!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_soon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwood_B._Idso
was funded by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
who was funded by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil

Kirill Kondratyev is selling his integrity to this group as well, for peanuts really. It seems $100 thousand can do a lot.
http://stopexxon.unfortu.net/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24

And the last author works for these guys. http://exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
Every last one of them are funded by Big oil. Nice study! ;-)

In case this is sounding paranoid, lets have a quick look at one of the most conservative scientific groups on earth.
“The Royal Society, is a learned society for science that was founded in 1660 and claims to be the oldest such society still in existence.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Society

Surely this group does not believe in “Conspiracy theories”? So what are their thoughts on the so called “Debate”?

“On September 4, 2006, Bob Ward, the Senior Manager for Policy Communication at the Royal Society, wrote to Nick Thomas, the director of corporate affairs for ExxonMobil in the UK. The Royal Society, which had Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, is the oldest and most prestigious scientific society in the world - and it's also deeply conservative. Mr. Ward asked why ExxonMobil paid millions of dollars to groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence." Such a strongly worded letter is very unusual for the Royal Society.”
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1938551.htm

You wanted evidence? There it is.

"They “believe” as scientists that it was the CO2 THAT INCREASED THE 11 year solar cycle EFFECT!"
Not in the paper I quoted, you're reading the wrong one again. They "believe" ommmm....just the results are interesting, not their beliefs.

"Similar problems with your ability to read come up with the “paper” you quote to challenge Oreskes… in that you obviously didn’t comprehend the last lines of their abstract."
So this paper falls into the "supporters" basket too? No wonder she didn't find any dissenting papers.
"Given the host of uncertainties and unknowns in the difficult but important task of climate modeling, the unique attribution of observed current climate change to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, including the relatively well-observed latest 20 yr, is not possible."
Pretty hard to interpret that in any other way.

"Our review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate."
I think you'll find they are dismissing CO2 but remain open to other anthropogenic influences (as I do) like land use changes and aerosols (like black carbon ;)

"You wanted evidence?"
Sure did...still waiting. I don't think you will be able to provide me with any of note. Just more repetition and conspiracy theories.

"The caterpillars cannot feed on the spring shoots soon enough, and the decreased moths in future seasons..."
I notice that all the alarmist's dire predictions are always future based, just like the old telephone psychics. Alarmists also like to find "big oil" conspiracies everywhere.

Alzo tries to dodge the inconvenient facts by referring to his preferred paper by those authors, not the “inconvenient truth” of the other papers by the same author. Nice try Alzo, but you’re the master of dodging inconvenient TRUTHS aren’t you?

Like the truth that the “paper” you quote was written by fossil fuel backed nutters. Oreskes only quotes serious papers.

The ecosystem climate impacts are happening now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Ecological_productivity
Temperatures are still up.

It’s not the sun.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/friday-roundup/

Point 6 here
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

ABC Science show here
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1974497.htm

(I’ve already quoted all these, but nothing will dissuade Alzo from his BELIEFS).

There is no paper that explains the vast discrepancies between solar activity and temperature. Alzo just believes that we will find such a mechanism one day, rather than accepting the 928 CLIMATOLOGISTS that already know what’s going on. I guess some people just find Global Warming inconvenient after all. Do you work for King Coal Alzo?

Don’t waste your time quoting any argument by Richard Lindzen because:-
1. We got to see his argument style on the “Swindle” already, once was enough
2. While a qualified Atmospheric Physicist, he’s still not a Climatologist
3. He’s debunked here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/

Alzo, I’m actually getting bored of this. I only started it because I was so cranky with the documentary and Plimer’s silly misinformed and tricky rant afterwards. You make out you have serious papers to quote, but are only waving your cap gun and firing blanks. I don’t have time to continually debunk all the crud you keep throwing our way.

I trust that newcomers to the list will see through your rubbish, and at least check Wikipedia on the so called “papers” and “experts” you regurgitate so often.

Don’t throw me any more “data” you seem to find convincing — using the “9/11 Conspiracy strategy” of trying to create debate where there is none. All your “data” has already been addressed by the REAL EXPERTS — the climatologists. You just don’t want to read it.

Last chance — is there a REAL climatologist that disagrees with AGW or not?

STEVE MCINTYRE BLOWS THE LID ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

http://technorati.com/blogs/www.climateaudit.org

Gawwwd, the yanks are now asking ..... "How did we solve the global warming problem in the 1930's?" .... now that Hansen's claim that 1998 was the US of A's hottest year on record ETC ETC ETC .... has been debunked and it is 1934 along with 5 of the 10 hottest years now being in the nineteen thirties.

Snowbird and Kieran,
did it EVER occur to you to ask some REAL climatologists before blurting out your 'stuff'? Go to Real climate and check next time before regurgitating this rubbish. It was a dishonest use of the data, and tried to present American statistics as if they somehow disproved the whole Global picture. The lead story at Real Climate is 1934 and all that. Keep up.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

As for "certainty" in any of this, try to follow the lead story on Grist today. Maybe you are focusing too much on the wrong questions and not asking the most important and basic questions to begin with.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/14/165012/828

"Oreskes only quotes serious papers."
Must have missed this parameter in her paper.

"Point 6 here"
The John Ray Initiative - connecting Environment, Science and Christianity? Because everyone needs to have faith.

"ABC Science show here"
From the man who played Doctor Who...for four months.

"rather than accepting the 928 CLIMATOLOGISTS"
That's 180!!

"Don’t waste your time quoting any argument by Richard Lindzen because:-"
1. We got to see his argument style on the “Swindle” already"
I thought he was quite good...

"2. While a qualified Atmospheric Physicist, he’s still not a Climatologist"
Maybe why he isn't hung up on dodgy computer models.

"3. He’s debunked here"
Some debunking there...of an article he wrote in the Wall St Journal, not any of his actual science. Roy Spencer's new paper actually finds some pretty strong evidence to support Lindzen.
"The increase in longwave cooling is traced to decreasing coverage by ice clouds, potentially supporting Lindzen's “infrared iris” hypothesis of climate stabilization."
Spencer also says
"To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent"
Which would make it a non-event.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2007GL029698.shtml

"Alzo, I’m actually getting bored of this. I only started it because I was so cranky "
Please stop, getting cranky is bad for one's health.

"STEVE MCINTYRE BLOWS THE LID ON CLIMATE CHANGE."
Global Warming just got a little less global. The USA temperature record now shows no ongoing trend of warming for the late 20th century, rather a cyclical trend where it was hotter in the 1930s. A similar pattern occurs in the Chinese temperature record. One would assume the USA temperature record is one of the most reliable in the world, doesn't leave you with a great deal of confidence in the rest. Been a bad week for AGW.

"did it EVER occur to you to ask some REAL climatologists before blurting out your 'stuff'? Go to Real climate"
The home of Mike "the broken hockeystick" Mann and Gavin "compuer says" Scmidt.

Logic of Climate change!!

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_6633374?source=email

Steve McIntyre's ClimateAudit.org website is down because it cannot handle the traffic.

Hansen and all the other greenhouser alarmists including Al Gore, over and over have said that you cannot argue with their data which is presented as fact ....i.e. that the majority of the 10 hottest years in the US of A have occurred since 1990. Now that this Papal decree has been proved to be incorrect it is being CONVENIENTLY buried, ignored and treated by Hansen as insignificant and not really that important. If this is the case, (and with the understanding that there is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the warming trend,) one then wonders why it was ever important before.

Within this thread I must confess that I've tended to perceive the bigger picture issues like the solar/cosmic influence where we just see the climate changes back and forth. from mini-ice age to mini-heat wave. I have also dwelt on very serious relevant problems at the core of science that filter down through other branches such as climate science. e.g. If we have known for forty plus years that the intrinsic redshift of galaxies is quantized and thus spelling the end of the big bang hypothesis, why do we still have NASA promoting and only funding psudo-science people who support these old faked up, gravity-only, closed cosmological models that simply thrive on absurdity after absurdity? Like as one particular latter day Galileo has said, "After all, to get the whole universe totally wrong in the face of clear evidence for over 75 years merits monumental embarrassment and should induce a modicum of humility."

James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is one such psudo-scientist with diminished integrity who is more concerned with invented fictional entities. This blind trust ultimately relates to the worship mindset where the desire to believe is easy and the exacto opposite to the love to find out and gain understanding.

Kieran, you crack me up. Your smugness is rich coming from someone that believes the sun runs on electricity!

Alzo, the JRI piece was from the head of the IPCC to a Christian audience, that’s all. He’s still a scientist, and it’s still science.

You repeat the mantra that all climatologists are hung up on the one computer model. Your spin portrays a mythical climate meeting where they all became hoodwinked by the one computer model.

Readers, if you choose to believe Alzo you are only deluding yourself. Alzo, go and spend some time with real climatologists. See what they are measuring, the questions they ask, and why. You will find that scientific scepticism is alive and well. Every scientist with half an ounce of ambition or career planning wants to establish his or her name by discovering something new. The premise of Plimer’s article is just plain false!

On the Hockey-stick graph: the real reason the Medieval warm period was abandoned was because scientific scepticism is alive and well. If they had KEPT the warm period, THAT would have been a sign of consensus-trance taking over. But tree rings, ice-cores, and countless other data sets have disproved global warming then. It was a purely LOCAL weather phenomena, not a GLOBAL climate parameter. Learn the difference! The hockey-stick is true, pure and simple. The science advanced since that old graph was developed 20 odd years ago.

Scientists are sceptical and fiercely independent. You can’t get your head around the fact that multiple disciplines and very sceptical scientists are all coming to similar conclusions from DIFFERENT data sets. So go ahead, believe your myth of the ONE computer model that deceived the world. (LOL!)

There are cranks that disagree. You can find ANYTHING on the net if you want to. These cranks “make their name” (and money) by appealing to the crass underbelly of the anti-environmentalist — such as yourself — and selling books, and getting the occasional grant from big oil. But they are wrong. You just don't like the legitimate peer review process.

TotalEclipse says he is cracking up now that he has discovered our big plasma discharge formation, sunnyboy. Must admit that this has taken quite an effort on my part but I thought we may have been getting somewhere when he found sunnyboy at wiki. My question is ........ Just how do some people (Davsab included) get to be so entirely maladaptive? Just why is it nothing more than literally ..... "I WANT to believe. . . So I DO!"... ? More seriously here, there is this need to not be curious at all and that's where we find the great disconnect ..... the frozen in mindset always preferring presumption/belief/theory over facts. This is where these unfortunates will only find their ego along with the righteousness that facts can be bent or ignored to fit their theory.

My family and friends often wonder why I often post here in some of the OLO forums and perhaps the main reason is the wealth of funny stuff and subroutines that I get to play with that otherwise would never be tried. There are many cognitive benefits and enrichments in play that enhances behavioural flexibility. Picasso and Mozart played all their lives. But there are some unfortunates that do not play, that are fragile, inhibited, stressed or whatever?

Let's try to get the essential features of intrinsic motivation where first one should PLAY before the enrichment of find and ye shall seek.

AND ...
Isn't it the inductive mindset that perceives everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole, that is undivided, unbroken and without border, which flows to orderly action and along with it to the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor "mentally" unhealthy.

ps
e.g. Top shelf funny stuff like how anyone could get accurate temperatures from tree rings, get so many people to believe it, and rate this above peer reviewed evidence from solar scientists who demonstrate a clear relationship between solar change and climate change.

Alzo, still waiting for a valid Climatologist to debunk Global Warming and do a sun-dance for us.

Kieran, I know, I know, "It's the Cosmos dude!"

Wow... I think I'm tuning in now. (Yawns and falls asleep)

Keiran, you just don't have a clue about research - go join a debating club.
Eclipse Now, REAL climatologists have better things to do, leave the clowns alone.

"REAL climatologists have better things to do, leave the clowns alone"
Clowns? I think you mean Jesters. Oh boy...what a nut, he's just getting worse.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf

ps he is Schmidt's boss...

Alzo, you've attached a paper without any reference to the author's name except to say PS it's someone's boss. Is that because you are trying the 9/11 conspiracy strategy again of trying to engage us in a debate where there is none? Trying to get us to debate all your countless, pointless, invalid arguments when I am merely asking for one real climatologist that disagrees with the prevailing SCIENTIFIC paradigm?

Stop being so annoyingly obtuse and spit it out. Who? Or are you worried that 5 seconds of googling will show the guy retired before the climate debate even began, or used to write reports defending cigarette companies?

Some guy called James Hansen...father of global warming or something. Sounds like he has gone off the deep end as his theory unravels.
Worth a read for chuckles...
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf

A person with a delusion is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real.

Examples .....

Dr. John C. Mather is a Senior Astrophysicist in the Observational Cosmology Laboratory at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. He was awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics, shared with George F. ("fingers of god") Smoot. Mather writes big bang fiction like .........
"The cosmic microwave background (CMB) spectrum is that of a nearly perfect blackbody with a temperature of 2.725 +/- 0.001K. This observation matches the predictions of the hot Big Bang theory extraordinarily well, and indicates that nearly all of the radiant energy of the Universe was released within the first year after the Big Bang."

Dr James E Hansen is director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. His most recent “destruction of Creation” epistle is as Steve McIntyre observes ...... "It’s as though Hansen, who grew up in the 1930s and 1940s, has a Jor-El complex: Jor-El being familiar to young boys of a certain age as Superman’s father who (per Wikipedia):
“was a highly respected scientist on the planet Krypton before its destruction. He foresaw the planet’s fate, but was unable to convince his colleagues in time to save their race. Jor-El was, however, able to save his infant son, Kal-El, sending him in a homemade rocketship to the planet Earth just moments before Krypton’s demise."

OK Alzo, so you are no longer even answering my questions, just trolling. I'm still waiting for a REAL climatologist that debunks Global Warming. Laugh all you want. Tell everyone lies about Hansen's theory unravellings when actually your case for the "mysterious sunlight stopper" that comes and goes only when you need it to explain all the solar discrepancies, and then vanishes again when you need solar activities and temperatures to be consistent to argue your point. Interesting argument! ;-)

Kieran, I suggest you spend 30 seconds on wikipedia learning the difference between a Climatologist and any other profession you wish to quote... then maybe plug in to your electric sun?

More funny stuff ......
Davsab who knows all about AlGoreIthms and Unrealclimate but nothing about causality, says "Keiran, you just don't have a clue about research ..." .

Gee, wow, amazing, another substantive, on-topic post from the "Electric Sun - interconnected cosmos" dude. I'm here for Alzo's last post Kieran. Don't delude yourself that anyone takes your posts seriously.

Alzo, how's that "debate" in the climatology community going mate?

"I'm still waiting for a REAL climatologist that debunks Global Warming"
Well you could try ol' Roger Pielke over at http://climatesci.colorado.edu/ or John Christy, Roy Spencer?...Lindzen may not have studied a Bachelor of "Climate Science" but he is more qualified than your Gavin Scmidts..or James Hansens for that matter.

"Laugh all you want."
Thanks, I did. You would have to if you had read the bile he frothed out in that musing.

"Tell everyone lies about Hansen's theory unravellings"
1998 is no longer the hottest year and more warm years in the top ten are now from the 1930s than from the past 10 years in the US, it did seem to be a major unravelling. Global warming is now only for select countries (see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1943) and also appears to be absent from the Southern Hemisphere. The latest temperature anomaly from the satellites for the southern hemisphere is just 0.05C. In other words, the SH is now no hotter than it was in 1978 (damn you Southern Ocean!). I just love the way AGW turns itself on and off all the time. Stand by though, they are predicting AGW to come back ON with a VENGEANCE in 2009 and for "global" temperatures to really fire up. Not too long to wait and see how that pans out. I wonder if they will claim the 0.2C (Tung) temperature rise expected from the ascendancy of solar cycle 24...you bet they will.

Alzo, I suggested that you wiki them first didn’t I? So now I know you are through and through a total liar!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke
Roger A. Pielke (Sr.) is a meteorologist

BZZZ! Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

John Christy was more interesting, as he does seem to be one climatologist that is sceptical of CO2 being the ONLY exclusive fundamental cause, but has said…

“It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way.”

He still believes we are doing it, but if he is right and all the other climatologists are wrong, then it may be even MORE serious than if Co2 were to blame. It seems our very agriculture has to be stopped! He is sceptical of severe consequences, but hey? The IPCC was a conservative body anyway. If we are to have an Annex A for all the Apathetic climatologists, then we need Annex B for all those that say “Bad” and Annex C for all those who say “Catastrophic”, OK?

Ultimately, humans are doing climate change, with some greenhouse input into that but he downplays just CO2. So does he support the “delayed Solar theory” of yours? (“I do believe in Birdman, I do, I DO!”) No.

BZZZ! Wrong.

Roy Spencer is just agnostic about man made Global Warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

He has no counter-theory, just questions whether or not we really know yet. He’s a sceptic in face of the evidence. He also seems to be a Creationist. Have fun dismissing hundreds of climatologist reports with him!

Lastly, I understand the experts to be saying CO2 is currently the problem. I also understand that this can be relatively easily solved by storing carbon in our soils. Watch Catalyst tomorrow night.

The main thing that bugs me is Deniers acting like the science is not settled, when no other theory works and no other single factor can explain the data we see.

A climatologist is one who studies the climate. Pielke qualifies as does Lindzen, you saying they do not has nout to do with it.

"John Christy was more interesting, as he does seem to be one climatologist that is sceptical of CO2 being the ONLY exclusive fundamental cause"
Well fancy that...have to agree with him there.

"putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air"
There are those old aerosols again...black carbon anyone?

"He is sceptical of severe consequences"
Probably because they are farcical...

"Ultimately, humans are doing climate change"
Never said they weren't...CO2 is just a much smaller player than touted by the IPCC

"Roy Spencer is just agnostic about man made Global Warming."
As I am..

"He has no counter-theory, just questions whether or not we really know yet. "
Bingo!

"I also understand that this can be relatively easily solved by storing carbon in our soils. Watch Catalyst tomorrow night."
I will on my CO2 generating television. As long as I don't have to go back to living in cave. So everybody can stop worrying now...whew....catastrophe avoided!

Here's the real truth on global warming. Never let it be said you were not forewarned and given the facts.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html

Ummmmm, not sure what you are trying to communicate there about the "real truth" about Global Warming.

Alzo, the facts are in, you just don't like them. Boohoo for you. The fact that you are unconvinced and stubborn does not mean that the science is bad. The fact that one climatologist says "I don't think we know" without proposing another mechanism does not do away with the 928 reports that DO know. The fact of previous deep-history Global Warming events with dead oceans and a massive biodiversity die-off does not disappear because of your skepticism. The fact of CO2 build up does not go away, nor the physics of methane and other Global Warming gases.

These are simply established facts, and that one climatologist seems to maintain there might be some other factors to consider does not discount that these factors are being studied and re-studied and re-studied, and all concluding that we are warming the planet.

Agrichar may just be the "Silver Bullet" we need to establish a stable climate and stop catastrophic sea-level rise and ecological destruction. But what if it's marginally more expensive, and needs some form of smallish subsidy to be economically viable? The science is important, because ultimately it will affect policy. People like you standing around endlessly repeating lies and diversions does not help the discussion move forward. (You MUST work for king Coal to be so committed to misrepresenting the state of climate science, and put forward such self-contradictory solar theories).

I propose that until you can come up with a viable alternative theory as to why this is happening, you simply not post here any more. It's boring. We all get the message. You don't accept the science. Good for you. Until you can explain WHY in a coherent, scientific manner you disagree with a successfully proven theory, stop boring us with your obsfucation.

"Ummmmm, not sure what you are trying to communicate there about the 'real truth' about Global Warming."
He is saying we should kill all those damn pollutin' moose. All the cattle, sheep and other ruminants while we're at it. Lets all go vegan!

"Alzo, the facts are in, you just don't like them."
Actually I love facts. The more that come in the less I like the AGW theory, which is not fitting the observed facts. What would it take for you to overturn your "belief" in AGW? How about 928 papers falsifying it? Just wait.

"The fact that you are unconvinced and stubborn does not mean that the science is bad."
No it's not. Using bad or misleading data is bad science eg. Hockeysticks or dodgy temperature adjustments.

"The fact of previous deep-history Global Warming events with dead oceans and a massive biodiversity die-off does not disappear because of your skepticism. The fact of CO2 build up does not go away...blah blah"
Never said they did. I love how you put words in my mouth. Questionable whether CO2 had much to do with them though.
Global methane levels have levelled off and actually may be beginning to decrease. Yes I agree CO2 levels are building up. Does that matter, don't think so. This is your case?

"Agrichar may just be the "Silver Bullet" we need to establish a stable climate"
No such thing as a stable climate, go back to your fairy tales.

"catastrophic sea-level rise and ecological destruction"
The sky is falling....the sky is falling...thanks CL.

"People like you standing around endlessly repeating lies and diversions"
Sorry for being a heretic. Crucify me.

"I propose that until you can come up with a viable alternative theory as to why this is happening, you simply not post here any more."
Propose all you like, you're not my type. I think you'd be better off asking davasb, you guys get on soooo well.
I won't post anymore if you don't. Can't be fairer than that.

"stop boring us"
Is this the royal "us"?

re hot years in 1934 - see:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0823/p02s01-wogi.html?s=hns

"Put another way, the new figures show that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the US occurred during the 1930s, not more recently. This caused a stir among those critical of the push to stem human-induced climate change.

"Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh used reports of the revisions to argue that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by scientists with liberal agendas," reported The Washington Post.

"We have proof of man-made global warming," Limbaugh said on his show…. "The man-made global warming is inside NASA. The man-made global warming is in the scientific community with false data."
Blogger Steve McIntyre, who started the controversy, lives in Canada. His hometown newspaper, The Toronto Star, headlined its story "Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder."

"They moved pretty fast on this," McIntyre said. "There must have been some long faces."
Still, McIntyre called his finding "a micro-change," and others agree. For one, the reranking didn't affect global records, and 1998 remains tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, the Los Angeles Times notes, quoting climatologist Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"The data adjustment changes 'the inconsequential bragging rights for certain years in the U.S.,' he said. But 'global warming is a global issue, and the global numbers show that there is no question that the last five to 10 years have been the hottest period of the last century.' "

Rush Limbaugh - now there's your climate expert.
Google "Rush Limbaugh" for his credentials.

Exactly.

These "storm in a teacup" arguments are nauseating and stupid. "Oh, but, look at America's temperature trends, that's just GOT to throw out the total GLOBAL Warming theory".

Hypothetically, even if the GLOBE was warming in the 1930's (and not just the US, but I am talking about the whole beautiful blue dot here people), then, hypothetically, we'd have another piece of data to consider. CO2 would still be CO2. Methane would still be methane, and nitrous oxide would still be 300 or so times more powerful a Greenhouse Gas than CO2.

The sceptics see ONE little teeny weeny bit of data, and jump up and down like it's the best Christmas present they've ever had. They don't realize the time and effort devoted to studying ALL of these forcings, and that it's usually way, way above their pretty little heads.

Basically, I'm bored of Alzo's lies. He's told some WHOPPERS in his obfuscating time here, trying to quote studies proving CO2's influence as proving Alzo's totally incoherent "Solar delay" theory. Either he's intentionally lying, or his non-theory derives from a "comprehension delay". There's nothing more to see here. I'm moving on.

Bye Alzo, and one moral tale before I leave. The boy who cried wolf... remember, the message is not just that we should not lie. The message is also that there ARE wolves, and that they eat little boys.

24% 0f the worlds forest have been denuded for the raising of cattle. There is approximately 1.3 billion cattle alone exhaling tons of methane each and every day. This production exceeds that of methane emissions from mines, gas production facilities, and landfills. Then there is the 171 million buffalo, 1 billion odd sheep, 767 million goats, 956 million pigs, 55 million horses, 12 million mules, 40 million asses, 19 million camels, 16 million chickens, 1.5 million ducks, not counting geese and every other animal not mentioned, or the impact of their waste on the environment.
And those world livestock figures are from 2003.
How about we replant that 24% of earth with trees and wait 10 years to see how that works first before we follow up with the suicide booths.
Actually, I think both could be done in conjunction with one another. All those who blame human existence could suicide themselves for the greater good, while the rest of us look at the world a little more holistically and work out the dynamics rather than follow like lemmings the 'true believers' of global warming and their apopaleptic rage against man.
If you really want to extend your study investigate food, feed, processing and consumer wastage. That ranges anywhere from 0% to 164%.
not counting the energy required to produce or process. Just in terms of wastage.

Sir Vivor thanks for quoting the Christian Science Monitor...and alerting us to God's wrath.

"CO2 would still be CO2. Methane would still be methane"
Science in action is a beautiful thing.

"Bye Alzo"
Bye EN...see you in 2009 when and if AGW returns.

"there ARE wolves, and that they eat little boys"
eeek! Stop scaring the children.

"All those who blame human existence could suicide themselves for the greater good"
EN or davasb, step up.

Ian Plimer in his excellent article makes this important distinction that relates to connectivity ...... "If the conclusion that humans are changing climate by carbon dioxide emissions requires the omission of validated astronomical, palaeontologic and geological evidence, then the popular view of humans causing climate change is not science. We are seeing a revival of a form of zealous Western politics intertwined with poor theology, poor economics and poor logic."

The distinction i make is that the universe is not a closed system but an infinite environment.... a major distinction. It never ceases to amaze how even seemingly intelligent people push this "Strong Anthropic Principal" which is weak and unimaginative on just about every level.

Systems people only know closed exclusive systems which is not surprising really but if the universe is an infinite ENVIRONMENT then it is not a system however one wants to look at it. So let's not start with preconceived silly cosmological models or climate models that are nonsensical and no different to earlier examples like the "wonderful" idea that the earth rested on the back of a giant turtle.

In an infinite environment, divergence and convergence are equal. Things come apart in one place to form other things in another place giving this process occurring at all times with respect to each electron, atom, cell, organ, organism, species, ecosystem, planet, and galaxy.

Stopping climate change and making it somehow perfect, constant and regular simply serves to illustrate quite well the anthropocentric mindset where we are expected to understand that all humans exhale carbon with original sin. Quite ridiculous when you consider that carbon creates a greening and healthy environment. I love CO2 because it grows better roses, bigger tomatoes, greens the environment and even leads to stronger, healthy people. We just need to get out there and kick the greening on a bit with some good conservation programs. Understanding the biological behavior of terra preta is but one. There are many practical and beneficial convergence programs for CO2. (Unless of course you believe you smell like a rose with your anthropocentric mindset.)

What the climate change skeptics are arguing is that pollution has no consequence. The skeptics argument hinges on wether the moon is in Scorpio and the Sun is in Leo if then venus is rising in capricorn and the feng shui of Titan interferes with the crystal healing of Jesus who is ressurected by the waking of the Yeti then the sun will cause global warming.

C'mon you pro science climate hystericists with your ridiculous argument gas does stuff, prove it aint so.

re:
"Sir Vivor thanks for quoting the Christian Science Monitor...and alerting us to God's wrath."

I'm puzzled. Where in the article is God's wrath mentioned?

Alzo, maybe you'd better read the full article. The link is in my prior post.

And maybe you ought to find out a bit more about the Christian Science Monitor. My opinion is that it is a more reliable source of information than Rush Limbaugh. I expect my opinion would be shared by many a journalist, be he (or she) theist, agnostic or atheist.