I am not impressed by a programme that, in its blurb, claims that "there is an almost overwhelming scientific consensus that there are real challenges...". That is not true! There is a small clique of people who would have you believe that, but there are many - and a growing number of - scientists who seriously doubt the AGW agenda, often to the point of calling the scaremongering claims to be fraudulent. Serious scientists do not use the words 'fraud', 'hoax', or whatever, without good reason. In my own 30 years of studying planetary temperatures, I have found NO evidence to support the claim that an increase of carbon dioxide produces any warming, or that a decrease produces any cooling. What I have found is that temperature changes produce carbon dioxide changes, but the two do not always go hand in hand. The claim that the science is settled is simply untrue. The present, and recent, changes of temperature and (mis-named) greenhouse gases are not unprecedented. The Mann 'hockey stick' graph, that seems to show an unprecedented recent warming, has been discredited. The computer-generated alarmist claims are of very dubious significance. The IPCC was not set up to study global warming (or climate change) - it was set up to study human induced change. It presupposes that the global warming is man-made; it presupposes that there is a problem; and it presupposes that man can take action to cure the imagined problem. These presuppositions are hardly likely to yield any unbiased scientific conclusions.
Originally posted by warlow: I am not impressed by a programme that, in its blurb, claims that "there is an almost overwhelming scientific consensus that there are real challenges...". That is not true! There is a small clique of people who would have you believe that, but there are many - and a growing number of - scientists who seriously doubt the AGW agenda, often to the point of calling the scaremongering claims to be fraudulent. Serious scientists do not use the words 'fraud', 'hoax', or whatever, without good reason. In my own 30 years of studying planetary temperatures, I have found NO evidence to support the claim that an increase of carbon dioxide produces any warming, or that a decrease produces any cooling. What I have found is that temperature changes produce carbon dioxide changes, but the two do not always go hand in hand. The claim that the science is settled is simply untrue. The present, and recent, changes of temperature and (mis-named) greenhouse gases are not unprecedented. The Mann 'hockey stick' graph, that seems to show an unprecedented recent warming, has been discredited. The computer-generated alarmist claims are of very dubious significance. The IPCC was not set up to study global warming (or climate change) - it was set up to study human induced change. It presupposes that the global warming is man-made; it presupposes that there is a problem; and it presupposes that man can take action to cure the imagined problem. These presuppositions are hardly likely to yield any unbiased scientific conclusions.
What is causing the present, and recent, changes in temperature and is the planet warming?
Isn't it a bit of a no-brainer? We know that increased CO2 leads to increased warming. We also know that we have dug up and released gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere over the past 150 years - carbon that took millions of years to be taken out of the atmosphere in the first place. Why do we need any other explanation?
Originally posted by Lucibee: Isn't it a bit of a no-brainer? We know that increased CO2 leads to increased warming. We also know that we have dug up and released gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere over the past 150 years - carbon that took millions of years to be taken out of the atmosphere in the first place. Why do we need any other explanation?
I'd guess there is only one other potential cause and that is increased solar activity. Others have argued on this forum that the sun has not increased in temperature in recent times, so I am curious to know if there is alternative evidence that it has.
Unless Warlow disputes that temperatures have risen at all, how else do we explain it?
Originally posted by Lucibee: Isn't it a bit of a no-brainer? We know that increased CO2 leads to increased warming. We also know that we have dug up and released gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere over the past 150 years - carbon that took millions of years to be taken out of the atmosphere in the first place. Why do we need any other explanation?
No, we do NOT know that increased carbon dioxide leads to increased warming. It is claimed by some that it does (in theory) - but the claim is not borne out by the available data, neither in the remote, nor the recent past. That is why we DO need another explanation.
Originally posted by Lucibee: Isn't it a bit of a no-brainer? We know that increased CO2 leads to increased warming. We also know that we have dug up and released gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere over the past 150 years - carbon that took millions of years to be taken out of the atmosphere in the first place. Why do we need any other explanation?
I'd guess there is only one other potential cause and that is increased solar activity. Others have argued on this forum that the sun has not increased in temperature in recent times, so I am curious to know if there is alternative evidence that it has.
Unless Warlow disputes that temperatures have risen at all, how else do we explain it?
The Sun has not increased in temperature in recent times. There is a small variation the solar constant - a measure of the thermal output - but there are changes in the electrical and magnetic activity over and above the thermal output. The space around the Sun is filled with electrically conducting plasma, and we are embedded in the magnetic field of the Sun. This affects our own magnetic field. There is growing evidence that the incoming cosmic ray flux varies due to the electrical/magnetic variability of the Sun and this, in turn, affects the formation of clouds. We have known for a long time that the Little Ice Age coincided with the Maunder minimum - a period when the sunspot count was very low. Until recently we have not known how this low sunspot state could be a cause of low temperatures on Earth - but we now think that we can explain the connection. The IPCC do not seem to have made any attempt to factor in this new knowledge. Their agenda seems to be to push their presupposition of man-made warming and to firmly play down any other possibility. There is a clear and disturbing bias in their pronouncements. There are also rather too many unwarranted, or even false, claims emanating from the AGW camp.
Quote. I'd guess there is only one other potential cause and that is increased solar activity. Others have argued on this forum that the sun has not increased in temperature in recent times, so I am curious to know if there is alternative evidence that it has. EOQ.
Total solar insolation is not the only precursor to elevated global energy levels! Insolation bias can also cause this while solar radiation levels are constant (I thought I'd 'banged off' enough about this for everyone to know about it)! However, in an effort to not bore the pants off of everyone else, I'll keep this as brief as possible.
During the 1970s the 'ozone hole' was discovered. Since this time we have kept an eye on higher UV (ultraviolet) levels as a safety precaution against radiation burn (sunburn). I don't know of any 'credible' data to represent UV insolation that predate the ozone hole, so I don't see how any comparisons can be made for the pre 70s era.
The whole point is that ozone interacts with UV in the stratosphere where any heat that is generated by that interaction can easily be radiated out to space (it has an 'open window' to the cosmos as IR (infrared) [radiated heat] ). When ozone doesn't interact with UV (because the O3 isn't there), UV strikes deeper into the Earth and because of the wavelength of UV it passes easily through WV (water vapour), water and ice.
We also now see; greater danger from 'sunburn' (including skin cancers that are indicative of increased UV insolation), oceans heated to a greater depth and glaciers melting from the bottom of the glacier (some ski resorts even cover their slopes with a UV impenetrable blanket to protect the snow). One important point here is that WV, water and ice all block nearly all of the IR wavelengths. The heat doesn't escape easily and that is the reason that 'water', per se, is THE 'major greenhouse compound'. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is almost 'invisible' in comparison (in the troposphere at any rate, which is the most important environment for life on Earth)!
Any change of insolation bias from UV is a limited change and 30-50 years should see it stabilise. Provided no excessive detrimental alteration to the DNA of land and aquatic flora provide other forcings, the change is limited.
To me, the 'ozone hole' is reason enough for the higher activity in Earth's 'cooling system' and the slight increase in average global temperature!
This has nothing to do with "increased solar activity", or "increased CO2"! However, it is another reason for the current transitional state of the globe's climate (if you understand it).
I concur. There are other reasons that the Earth's 'cooling system' may become compromised. However, the IPCC are only interested in the 'anthropogenic' reasons for this!
Originally posted by Lucibee: Isn't it a bit of a no-brainer? We know that increased CO2 leads to increased warming. We also know that we have dug up and released gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere over the past 150 years - carbon that took millions of years to be taken out of the atmosphere in the first place. Why do we need any other explanation?
There are some who, regardless of the evidence, have a near-religious belief that it cannot be anything to do with us, and they will believe anything, anything, before they accept AGW as a possibility. For instance, they imagine that climate scientists have been engaged in a huge conspiracy for at least the last 20 years.
Originally posted by Lucibee: Isn't it a bit of a no-brainer? We know that increased CO2 leads to increased warming. We also know that we have dug up and released gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere over the past 150 years - carbon that took millions of years to be taken out of the atmosphere in the first place. Why do we need any other explanation?
There are some who, regardless of the evidence, have a near-religious belief that it cannot be anything to do with us, and they will believe anything, anything, before they accept AGW as a possibility. For instance, they imagine that climate scientists have been engaged in a huge conspiracy for at least the last 20 years.
For instance, they imagine that climate scientists have been engaged in a huge conspiracy for at least the last 20 years.
If you add to the above statement the Huge amounts of money involved in the 'aGW' movement then it becomes a little easier to 'imagine' a Huge conspiracy and I think it involves more than just 'climate scientist'.This might seem cynical but sometimes its hard for us that populate the real world to see it any other way.
Originally posted by Lucibee: Isn't it a bit of a no-brainer? We know that increased CO2 leads to increased warming. We also know that we have dug up and released gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere over the past 150 years - carbon that took millions of years to be taken out of the atmosphere in the first place. Why do we need any other explanation?
There are some who, regardless of the evidence, have a near-religious belief that it cannot be anything to do with us, and they will believe anything, anything, before they accept AGW as a possibility. For instance, they imagine that climate scientists have been engaged in a huge conspiracy for at least the last 20 years.
Agreed and well said.
Suricat, as you know I am an avid reader of this forum but I must admit I had completely overlooked your previous explanations of how the planet might be warming other than thru Greenhouse gases. What you have written here seems credible to a non-scientist such as myself and I'd ask others to respond to that or point me at previous posts that address the issues raised.
I did ask many moons ago how arctic sea ice could be so drastically diminished by a rise in atmospheric temperature (in an area of the globe that is bloody cold for most of the year) when most of it lies beneath the surface of the water. I'm not sure I got an adequate response. Your theory here does appear to provide an explanation.
I concur. There are other reasons that the Earth's 'cooling system' may become compromised. However, the IPCC are only interested in the 'anthropogenic' reasons for this!
That might be your perception but what evidence do you have? Climate models attempt to include all factors, natural and anthropogenic. Any model that used only the latter would be an obvious and immediate failure. (I realise of course that the IPCC does not itself design models but it represents the people who do.)
There are some who, regardless of the evidence, have a near-religious belief that it cannot be anything to do with us, and they will believe anything, anything, before they accept AGW as a possibility. For instance, they imagine that climate scientists have been engaged in a huge conspiracy for at least the last 20 years.
NO! That is a completely false and thoroughly misleading accusation. Those who doubt the AGW hypothesis are genuine scientists with open minds. If they found evidence to support the hypothesis they would not reject it - but they cannot find such evidence. If you want to find belief and religion, the place to look is in the AGW camp. It is there that you will find a strong smell of fundamentalist religious beliefs. It is the IPCC, and its associates, which presupposes the AGW agenda. It is there that you find suppression of dissenting views. It is there that you find FALSE claims of "consensus". A biblical fundamentalist believes that God set up the world - this Garden of Eden - then gave Adam and Eve stewardship thereof. We, the descendants of Adam and Eve, have inherited that stewardship. If something is perceived or imagined to be be going wrong, the failure must lie with the stewards. God cannot be blamed. Ergo, one cannot blame the Sun, which is under God's control. Look carefully and you will find the IPCC's AGW agenda strongly echoing that reasoning. Think on.
If they found evidence to support the hypothesis they would not reject it - but they cannot find such evidence.
So it becomes a question of who is competent in the gathering and interpretation of the evidence. Maybe Channel 4 can arrange for a number of climate science "heavyweights" from both camps who are able to articulate the science simply and clearly for the rest of us to make our minds up.
It might not win the ratings war but it might well be THE crucial question of our time.
The main protagoniost of this thread is saying that he does not accept that carbon dioxide absorbs infra red radiation (heat).
It is therefore obvious that either he missed physics and chemistry lessons at school, when we studied the proerties of gases. or he is just making it up.
Anyone who is wondering whether he is telling the truth, perhaps they too missed out on early science lessons, and who is not interested enough to find out more abouit it, should spend a couple of minutes looking at an encyclopedia entry about carbon dioxide. There are plenty on the web, try Wikipedia for a start.
Try also watching The Real Hustle to see other ways to fool the gullible.
If they found evidence to support the hypothesis they would not reject it - but they cannot find such evidence.
So it becomes a question of who is competent in the gathering and interpretation of the evidence. Maybe Channel 4 can arrange for a number of climate science "heavyweights" from both camps who are able to articulate the science simply and clearly for the rest of us to make our minds up.
EOQ This seems to be a pretty naive rebuttal Seskinreay knowing as I think you know that any scientist who would dare to go against aGW would be committing professional suicide.
Quote johnbee The main protagoniost of this thread is saying that he does not accept that carbon dioxide absorbs infra red radiation (heat).
It is therefore obvious that either he missed physics and chemistry lessons at school, when we studied the proerties of gases. or he is just making it up.
Anyone who is wondering whether he is telling the truth, perhaps they too missed out on early science lessons, and who is not interested enough to find out more abouit it, should spend a couple of minutes looking at an encyclopedia entry about carbon dioxide. There are plenty on the web, try Wikipedia for a start. EOQ
I thought CO2 reflected IR rather than absorbed it, or did I 'miss out on early science lessons'
If they found evidence to support the hypothesis they would not reject it - but they cannot find such evidence. EOQ
Originally posted by Seskinreay So it becomes a question of who is competent in the gathering and interpretation of the evidence. Maybe Channel 4 can arrange for a number of climate science "heavyweights" from both camps who are able to articulate the science simply and clearly for the rest of us to make our minds up.
EOQ This seems to be a pretty naive rebuttal Seskinreay knowing as I think you know that any scientist who would dare to go against aGW would be committing professional suicide.
Quote johnbee The main protagoniost of this thread is saying that he does not accept that carbon dioxide absorbs infra red radiation (heat).
It is therefore obvious that either he missed physics and chemistry lessons at school, when we studied the proerties of gases. or he is just making it up.
Anyone who is wondering whether he is telling the truth, perhaps they too missed out on early science lessons, and who is not interested enough to find out more abouit it, should spend a couple of minutes looking at an encyclopedia entry about carbon dioxide. There are plenty on the web, try Wikipedia for a start. EOQ
I thought CO2 reflected IR rather than absorbed it, or did I 'miss out on early science lessons' Big Grin
I apologize if my original post caused any confusion
Originally posted by johnbee: The main protagoniost of this thread is saying that he does not accept that carbon dioxide absorbs infra red radiation (heat).
It is therefore obvious that either he missed physics and chemistry lessons at school, when we studied the proerties of gases. or he is just making it up.
Anyone who is wondering whether he is telling the truth, perhaps they too missed out on early science lessons, and who is not interested enough to find out more abouit it, should spend a couple of minutes looking at an encyclopedia entry about carbon dioxide. There are plenty on the web, try Wikipedia for a start.
Try also watching The Real Hustle to see other ways to fool the gullible.
NO. I am NOT saying that I do not accept that carbon dioxide absorbs infra-red radiation. Don't make silly and false accusations. It impresses no-one.
No-one is saying that CO2 is the ONLY cause. Most AGWers accept that the sun does have a major part to play. The sun is undoubtedly getting hotter (and that's what it will continue to do during its lifetime until it swallows us up!), but these changes take place extremely slowly, over millions of years. The changes we are noting have been taking place over just a few years. Just look at the summary of the IPCC report, and you'll see just how rapid these changes are compared to previous changes.
Our atmosphere keeps life safe from some of effects of the sun. It keeps us warm when the sun is not there, and cool when the sun is shining. It is a finely balanced system, and the worry is that our activities may have upset the balance. We can either wait to see what those effects are, or we can try to do something about reversing the possible effects now. The models are telling us that those effects could be pretty serious.
I have found NO evidence to support the claim that an increase of carbon dioxide produces any warming, or that a decrease produces any cooling. What I have found is that temperature changes produce carbon dioxide changes, but the two do not always go hand in hand. The claim that the science is settled is simply untrue. The present, and recent, changes of temperature and (mis-named) greenhouse gases are not unprecedented. The Mann 'hockey stick' graph, that seems to show an unprecedented recent warming, has been discredited. The computer-generated alarmist claims are of very dubious significance.
1. That CO2 absorbs infrared is evidence that CO2 produces warming. 2. Science is never totally settled. But there comes a point
