Hi Q&A Yes some countries and some scientists are working in this field and some are not working in your popular field of endeavor, some disagree with your group movement's assumptions and are scientists endeavoring elsewhere. May be you could tell me what climate we will endure in june 2008 will it be wet or dry, warming or cold and where will these events take place?

No one disputes the physics of how greenhouse gases work or that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up by about a third since pre-industrial times. Very few people dispute that we are currently in a warming trend, although some do dispute whether humans have any responsibility for it,

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/25/181237/51

The problem is that the climate is incredibly complicated, with all sorts of positive and negative feedback mechanisms. Even the IPCC puts the chances that you skeptics are right at about 10%.

Nevertheless, given that there is some reason for concern, why do you skeptics think that it is a smart idea to do an uncontrolled experiment on our planet's atmosphere? Putting a large proportion of the carbon that has accumulated in fossil fuels over millions of years back in the atmosphere all at once certainly can't be considered anything else. If the environmentalists turn out to be wrong and we have taken their advice, the only downside is somewhat less economic growth. If they turn to have been right and we have proceeded with business as usual, it can mean all sorts of disasters.

Why on earth would "consensus" scientists enter into some vast conspiracy to delude the public? Exxon and the like have been funding the skeptic scientists, not them.

So the ‘wanabes’ Tweedledumb and Tweedledee reply in seeming unison to the question.

Neither addressed the scientific issues raised and both want to ‘kill’ the messenger – as sceptics are wont to do.

Sheeesh …

Tweedledumb even casts dispersions on a real scientist.

And Tweedledee doesn’t know the difference between climate science and weather forecasts.

_________________

Divergence

I agree. It is not prudent to ‘play’ with the planet to its breaking point. I have been confronted by *deniers* who argue that we need 100% proof before any kind of mitigation should be considered. Without this proof, they claim that the 'problem does not exist, is not that bad, or we can’t do anything about it'. Clearly, they know nothing about Risk Management.

When it comes to climate science, I defer to the expertise of real scientists who have dedicated their lives and careers to its study, rather than wanabes like the two tweedles above.

The major driver of our current state of global warming comes from the combustion of fossil fuels and land misuse practices – we know this mainly from isotope and attribution studies as shown in the RealClimate link.

Take out CO2e and all the other ‘forcings’ just cannot explain the global warming we are seeing now. Put simply, humanity is pouring more carbon into the atmosphere than the oceans and terrestrial biosphere can absorb.

I know very few genuine scientists who take a different position, but the ones that do are outliers.

Kellie Tranter says “most humans seem to be incapable of giving things up or cutting back or living only with what they need.”

There is some truth in this. Unless we (humanity) start changing our attitude (or philosophy) towards what sustains us and how we use our resources, well … we’re stuffed.

In Dr. Pierre's article he indicates that "a lot of low clouds over Antarctica" will have a cooling effect. I say, think again Dr Moral High Ground. What do you say Q and A?

Keiran, you put the effort in to read the article – put a little more in to understand it. Seriously, read it again with an open mind, as scientists do.

Remember, we are talking about the *hothouse* climate of the Cretaceous period between 145 to 65 million years ago. Having understood this, it may suggest an insight into what could happen in the not too distant future.

You appear to take his words out of context: ‘In Dr. Pierre's article he indicates that "a lot of low clouds over Antarctica" will have a cooling effect.’

What he said was:

“Could it be that the glaciation is telling us that we are completely barking up the wrong tree with the CO2 theory of hothouse climates? Perhaps, but somebody will have to pony up a quantifiable alternative before that avenue can be pursued ...” If this is in your league Keiran, by all means go for it.

“One could probably get a climate something like the suggested one by combining moderately elevated CO2 with making a lot of low clouds over Antarctica while making the rest of the world essentially cloud free (or somehow making the high cloud greenhouse effect dominant in the rest of the world), but that's quite a stretch.”

How would you suggest this could occur Keiran?

Indeed,

“If somebody comes up with a way of doing that which can be expressed in a sound mathematical formulation, I'll be the first to want to have a look at it. Cosmic ray enthusiasts could have a field day with this, but I doubt they'd have much success.”

Keiran, this was evidently meant for you.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/the-debate-is-just-beginning-on-the-cretaceous/#comment-79743

Here is a bit more on Antarctic ice loss

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123181952.htm

And the latest on ice cores

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123110405.htm

Keiran, there are a few genuine scientists who remain sceptical about the details of climate change but for those that try, well … we can all hope they are on to something. If you have discovered something, please let us know.

Hey, you can even post your ideas to raypierre or for others to comment.

Q&A, are you saying I'm taking Dr Pierre out of context? Don't think so.

To be quite frank, this Dr. Pierre is arrogant and prefers the pulpit to proper debate. On a simple issue that he discusses in this article of how implausibly the rest of the world can be a hot house (i.e. by being cloud free) whilst Antarctica remains frozen, he assumes this can only be done with "a lot of low clouds over Antarctica" . What he doesn't understand is cloud cover over Antarctic will not cool but warm and any decent scientist would know this.

Then based on this very misunderstanding, he concludes that "Cosmic ray enthusiasts could have a field day with this, but I doubt they'd have much success."

Now, dear Q&A, you explain your position on this particular piece of science. I don't need website references but simply your own reasoning. My thoughts on this *hothouse* climate of the Cretaceous period is simply the cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis that creates this anomaly. (i.e. in accordance with changes in the solar magnetic field that varies the cosmic-ray flux, and hence low level cloud cover.)

ps Do you get the feeling there is more cloud cover than we have had for a while? I wonder why?