TGGWS is a masterful piece of propaganda, but so too is “An Inconvenient Truth” – can we see past this?

There are certain nuances in the scientific community that will always be debated, but as we have seen, the technicalities while appearing somewhat straightforward to a casual observer, are quite often not. It can be argued that the technicalities are best left debated amongst the scientists themselves, not in the public domain.

Some may think there is nothing that can be done, but many more people (countries and businesses alike) at the ‘coal face’ (pun not intended) believe we can, and we are. This is where the real debate should be heading. In this regard, I was particularly impressed by Nikki Williams’s comments in the later discussion.

Countries like China and India are extremely aware of the impacts of global warming – they will suffer extremely (and as a consequence, so will we) if their ‘food-bowl’ is annihilated by its impacts. So addressing global warming and environmental sustainability is inextricably connected.

Keiran,

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, for example, by changes in cloud cover, small particles called aerosols or land cover),

3) altering the long¬wave energy radiated back to space (e.g., by changes in green¬house gas concentrations).

All of these factors have played a role in past climate changes.

Local climate also depends on how heat is distributed by winds and ocean currents, xoddam alluded to it.

Your specific questions are answered in the AR4 report; you have obviously not cared enough about the science to read it yourself so one has to question your motifs.

You accuse Jones et al of “nitpicking” in the critique of TGGWS when in fact you (a non-scientist) are doing exactly that here.

Continued

However,

In paraphrasing various sources, including the IPCC:

Coolings (in Keiran's sense of the word) 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.

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.

Equally, there is no requirement that a single cause operates throughout the entire 5000 - year long warming trends, and the 70,000 year cooling trends.

It is specious to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between.

There is a rich literature on this topic. Keiran, if you are truly interested, you would have read it, you obviously have not, so again – what is your agenda?

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.

In summary, the quantitative contribution of CO2 to the ice age cooling and warming is fully consistent with current understanding of CO2's warming properties, as manifested in the IPCC's projections of future warming of 3±1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. So there is no inconsistency between Milankovitch and current global warming.

Let us move on people.

Davsab, when you say "so one has to question your motifs", I'm somewhat perplexed as there is no motif. But if it is motive you are referring to then let me say I have no association with any political or business organisation. However, as you well know, we are all motivated, and i tend to do it with questions.... i.e. difficult questions.

Xoddam and Davsab, one such question relates to what drives changes creating derivatives. i.e. In an infinite connected universe full of pushers, just what are the biggest pushers and what becomes a derivative or product process?

The biggest pusher in our part of the world is good old sunnyboy.
e.g. 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.... 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

When attempting to understand solar influences on earth's climate, remember that sunnyboy interacts with our planet 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. e.g. It is not only the cyclic warming and cooling of the sun, but others that we have little understanding of like changes with cosmic rays, changes in the solar spectrum towards greater ultra-violet radiation when compared with visible or infra-red light ... also the unknown possibilities.

As I've said previously, CO2 in the atmosphere brings with it a healthy greening (an abundance of weeds too) with no convincing scientific evidence of catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere.

Davsab, you may like to join the scientists at ....
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Hi Kieran,

The solar-activity theory for the LIA/MWP looks convincing, if the proxies clearly show it globally. Peer-reviewed papers are often torn to shreds on websites these days; but when valid, rigorous criticism is submitted for review it gets published properly.

On the other hand, an increase in incidental solar radiation is not adequate to explain warming since 1970: there hasn't been one, while there *has* been an increase in greenhouse gases.

You and joeme are correct, something beyond our control like the sun or a meteor just *might* change everything catastrophically and render all debate about anthropogenic climate change moot.

As far as I'm concerned the evidence that the Earth's climate is dynamic and sensitive to such things as having CO2 belched into the atmosphere is entirely convincing.

A great effort has been made to find out just how sensitive, and just how the climate works. It's bloody complicated, involves multiple feedback processes, and no sane, well-informed person would commit to *any* firm prediction about what might happen.

The complacent look at it and say, it hasn't changed much yet; some basic equations say CO2 can't change things much directly; there's no convincing evidence for positive feedback.

It's uncontroversial that relative humidity tends to be constant over water, (the concentration of H2O in the atmosphere varies linearly with temperature).
It's uncontroversial that water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas.

So temperature clearly feeds back into the greenhouse effect.

A convincing-sounding argument against humidity feedback cites saturation of absorption spectrum windows, but the atmosphere is not a thin layer of glass: no spectrum window is saturated at higher altitudes, and the atmosphere is quite capable of blocking radiation even in the high stratosphere (think ozone & UV).

Other, delayed, feedbacks such as methane from thawing tundra will, if and when they happen, definitely cause a catastrophic warming.

That *is* a big if.

But are you so happy with your healthy weeds that you'll risk hitting such a tipping point?

You've just got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel relaxed and comfortable? Well do ya, punk?

Fads and fashions have always fascinated me. And there is no doubt that global warming is today's fashion accessory - like it or loathe it, it jumps from the pages of every magazine, every day.

The articles on the topic I saw recently in Europe verged on the banal. Every magazine devoted at least one piece to "what can YOU do about Global Warming?", and the handy hints ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous.

One of the more earnest described how an entire household had "gone green", eschewing cars for bicycles, meat for vegetables, computers for books and pen-and-ink. Needless to say, the subjects a) were extremely comfortably off and b) had come from the publicity industry, he from advertising and she from a PR agency.

And at the other end of the scale was the "bits and pieces" column, with advice on such critical issues as having your milk delivered in bottles rather than cartons.

Meanwhile, on another planet entirely...

The Chinese are building a new coal-fired power station every three days. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6769743.stm

European cattle, via entirely natural bodily functions, contribute nearly three times as much to global warming as the entire world airline industry put together. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/02/meet_daisy_the_cow_global_climates_enemy_number_on.html

It isn't necessary to believe in conspiracy theory (it's a controlling mechanism by the nasty capitalist hegemony) or indeed in doomsday predictions (it's the early heat-death of our planet) to see that the current GW fad is a media fantasy concoction of half-truths and wishful thinking.

If it is a real problem, we should do what every normal person or business does: find the biggest contributor first, and eliminate it from the equation. Then move on to the next, and the next, and so on.

I personally subscribe to the insurance theory. Even though nothing is specifically "proven", it would be prudent to take some preventive action. But individual contributions are simply guilt-driven self-flagellation. A global political solution is the only real answer, and I can't see self-serving polemics, from either faction, moving us towards that in a hurry

Thanks for you kind invitation Keiran, but knowing something of Fred Seitz and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, well - no thanks.

For those who want to understand my reasons for NOT accepting Keiran's suggestion, here is a pointer:

http://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1680/0/feed

Xoddam, I like your style but (and I must say I find this maxim hard to follow myself) “it is not worth casting your knowledge before those that will not understand”.

Pericles, good post. While I don't believe GW is a fad (based on what I know) - you make some good points.