quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
Since realprimate is interested, here's a forecast from a number of leading experts including "a Russian scientist" - but is it "the Russian scientist" - mustn't give the Nobel prize to the wrong one!

www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html

The panel was split, some arguing for a cycle slightly stronger and some slightly weaker than the last. I'm hoping for a nice weak one if only to shut the solar cycle hypothesysts up! Here's to no high latitude sunspots till at least next summer!

Ta and much obliged Steve. My initial thought was that warlow meant Jaworowski but he's Polish presumably.

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

quote:

Originally posted by warlow:

Look on the Wikipedia page for Godwin's Law and you will find the statement:- "Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime." I didn't fall for anything there. Perhaps it is worth noting that those who live in greenhouses would be best advised not to throw stones.

As to assuring you - no, I'm sorry, no-one can be certain what the future might bring. I can, however, tell you that a Russian scientist, from his assessment of Solar cycles, reckons that we could be heading for a mini ice age condition starting in or around 2010 and peaking around 2050. His guess is probably as good as or better than that of the computer modellers. I would suggest that the best action is stop worrying and to enjoy the nice warm weather while it lasts. We have coped well with the last hundred years or so of warming, and a bit more will do no harm.
No doubt there are those contributing to this thread who would protest vehemently at my complacency, and insist that my views are scientific claptrap. All I can say is:- there are none so blind as those who WILL not see.

This tells us, again, all we need to know about your opinions on this subject. You are unable to examine critically the evidence. You choose to believe anything that supports your preconceived views, no matter how weak or unsupported it is. You would rather believe one scientist's vague predictions than the peer-reviewed work of the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, scientists who know rather a lot about solar cycles (and all the other factors you claim that they ignore).

1) A Russian scientist ... a fine citation.

2) That wouldn't be Abdusamatov again, "contends that even the natural greenhouse effect does not exist" would it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabibullo_Abdusamatov

quote:

Originally posted by warlow:

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
I don't have time to reply properly because of the curfew, so I simply refer you to Godwin's Law.

Fell for the the old one two there Warlow. Any chance you could argue the science (perhaps substituting for Suricat in his absence) re the sun vs CO2 debate. I'd really like to be assured that I need not worry about (A)GW.

Look on the Wikipedia page for Godwin's Law and you will find the statement:- "Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime." I didn't fall for anything there. Perhaps it is worth noting that those who live in greenhouses would be best advised not to throw stones.

As to assuring you - no, I'm sorry, no-one can be certain what the future might bring. I can, however, tell you that a Russian scientist, from his assessment of Solar cycles, reckons that we could be heading for a mini ice age condition starting in or around 2010 and peaking around 2050. His guess is probably as good as or better than that of the computer modellers. I would suggest that the best action is stop worrying and to enjoy the nice warm weather while it lasts. We have coped well with the last hundred years or so of warming, and a bit more will do no harm.
No doubt there are those contributing to this thread who would protest vehemently at my complacency, and insist that my views are scientific claptrap. All I can say is:- there are none so blind as those who WILL not see.

Sadly Warlow, you seem to have fallen way short of providing the assurance I seek. Thanks for the contributions though, although you are now tucked up in the draw marked Roger58 !!

Realprimate

quote:

1 It's the sun 10.8%
2 Surface temp is unreliable 7.7%
3 Climate's changed before 7.0%
5 Models are unreliable 4.7%
6 It's cosmic rays 4.7%
8 Mars is warming 3.4%
9 Other planets are warming 3.4%
10 It's Urban Heat Island effect 3.3%
13 Greenland was green 2.6%
15 Antarctica is cooling/gaining ice 2.3%
16 It hasn't warmed since 1998 2.2%
17 CO2 lags temperature 2.2%
18 Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming 2.1%
19 The hockey stick was debunked 1.8%
21 It cooled mid-century 1.6%
22 Neptune is warming 1.6%
23 Greenland is cooler/gaining ice 1.5%
24 It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low 1.5%
27 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use 1.3%
29 We're coming out of an ice age 1.2%
31 Jupiter is warming 1.0%
32 It's aerosols 0.9%
33 Satellites show no warming in the troposphere 0.9%
36 It's volcanoes (or lack thereof) 0.6%
43 It's methane 0.2%
45 Solar cycles cause global warming 0.2%
46 IPCC overestimate the danger 0.1%
47 It's the ozone layer 0.0%

Nice but short list. I've eliminated what I see as the irrelevant items from your list ie irrelevant to the science of whether AGW will be significant or not - remember I do believe human produced CO2 does contribute to climate change.

Now the % next to the item is the % of references in sceptic argument online to the proposition not the absolute effect. Some are simply statements of perceived fact and some are relevant to the input to models that are used to predict the future.

Now anyone who proposes that climate change is caused by only one thing is clearly mad. eg It's the sun or it's cosmic rays or it's methane. Missing from the list are "we can't model cloud feedbacks", "we can't model aerosol feedbacks" nor does it move to 2nd order effects like "aerosols used to be predominantly in the west now they are predominantly in the east" surely an impact on climate change not referenced anywhere. Nor do you include electromag heating of the atmosphere because of increased solar wind. There is no mention of non-linear feedbacks of change or resonance of natural oscillations which may be periodic or chaotic.

If you reposte is that these items are implicit in your comments about aerosols, sun, models, water vapour then fine but why list anything just say sceptics say it's not just CO2.

Despite that you're sound like you are confident it's all down to anthropogenic CO2.

So when you say

quote:

This is a list of every skeptic argument encountered online as well as how often each argument is used.

you are wrong.

I'd be interested to know which of the specific points in your list you consider to be correct or relevant, if any.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Realprimate
[remember I do believe human produced CO2 does contribute to climate change. ]

SOM "contribute"? That's a bit of a weasel word if I ever heard it. Find a number my man.

[Despite that you're sound like you are confident it's all down to anthropogenic CO2.]
QUOTE]

All? No not "all". Sceptics strangely enough helped science by pointing out that the sun contributed a certain percentage of the Earth's temperature increase. From memory the sun contributed a fairly large % over the first half of the 20th century. But for the past 20-30 years nothing else explains the temp increase of the Earth except anthropogenic causes. Nothing else. I'll look for numbers if you like. Gotta work now.

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Realprimate
[remember I do believe human produced CO2 does contribute to climate change. ]

SOM "contribute"? That's a bit of a weasel word if I ever heard it. Find a number my man.

[Despite that you're sound like you are confident it's all down to anthropogenic CO2.]
QUOTE]

All? No not "all". Sceptics strangely enough helped science by pointing out that the sun contributed a certain percentage of the Earth's temperature increase. From memory the sun contributed a fairly large % over the first half of the 20th century. But for the past 20-30 years nothing else explains the temp increase of the Earth except anthropogenic causes. Nothing else. I'll look for numbers if you like. Gotta work now.

RP, the numbers would be interesting. Once you've eliminated the issues that don't cause the warming, you have the culprit staring you in the face !!

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Now anyone who proposes that climate change is caused by only one thing is clearly mad.

Yep - I would say you've got it in a nut-shell there SOM. Madness is clinging onto one idea. Remember how the socialist idea has proven to be a total political failure. The people who cling on to such a utopian day-dream don't just evaporate when all their years of wishing comes to zilch... they re-emerge using more indirect paths to achieve their goal. The madness of people who cannot accept plurality results in them trying to sneak their single, failed, idea back in surreptitiously through environmental concerns. And as the socialist idea is now globally rejected, this time 'success' is dependent on their denial of it.

quote:

Madness is clinging onto one idea

You said it.

You sang it.

You ran it up the flagpole

and, like a bell, you rang it.

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Now anyone who proposes that climate change is caused by only one thing is clearly mad.

Yep - I would say you've got it in a nut-shell there SOM. Madness is clinging onto one idea. Remember how the socialist idea has proven to be a total political failure. The people who cling on to such a utopian day-dream don't just evaporate when all their years of wishing comes to zilch... they re-emerge using more indirect paths to achieve their goal. The madness of people who cannot accept plurality results in them trying to sneak their single, failed, idea back in surreptitiously through environmental concerns. And as the socialist idea is now globally rejected, this time 'success' is dependent on their denial of it.

How are your CHOLESTROL levels Rog? You'd be mad to increase them.

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Realprimate
[remember I do believe human produced CO2 does contribute to climate change. ]

SOM "contribute"? That's a bit of a weasel word if I ever heard it. Find a number my man.

[Despite that you're sound like you are confident it's all down to anthropogenic CO2.]
QUOTE]

All? No not "all". Sceptics strangely enough helped science by pointing out that the sun contributed a certain percentage of the Earth's temperature increase. From memory the sun contributed a fairly large % over the first half of the 20th century. But for the past 20-30 years nothing else explains the temp increase of the Earth except anthropogenic causes. Nothing else. I'll look for numbers if you like. Gotta work now.

RP, the numbers would be interesting. Once you've eliminated the issues that don't cause the warming, you have the culprit staring you in the face !!

Quite so Seskinreay and so to the numbers. To quantify the sun’s impact you have to disentangle the contributions made by natural variability and other forcings\feedbacks. E.g The sun was 25 to 30% less luminous 4.5 BYA (but the earth had liquid water).
According to :-http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/sunclimate.html
U.S. Global Change Research Information Office
[solar changes might account for a rise of about 0.5°C since the 17th century, perhaps half of the warming since 1850, and less than a third of the warming in the last twenty- five years.…
Looking ahead, were solar changes limited to what has been measured in the last fifteen years, future changes in the Sun's total radiation would have only a negligible effect on the temperature increases of 1 to 3°C that are now projected in IPCC models for the end of the next century]
So the sun variability apparently accounts for a 33% GW increase which leaves 67% down to us. And as you can see from the “negligible” word in the sentence from now on it’s all our fault.

Ps
I checked out this “U.S. Global Change Research Information Office” website. I refers to realclimate as well so it’s apparently not one of those official sounding websites run by sceptic/conservative organisations.

The thing that makes me shake my head in wonder is that all it takes is for a couple of scientists to make a claim which is then printed in the press or reported on by TV news, and everyone firstly becomes an expert then panics. So, first things first. Having an opinion is brilliant, but one should exercise extreme caution in how it's expressed. If I read a factual book then rehash the content as if it were mine, I would be a fool. I would equally be a fool to make any important decisions based on what I read, as it is no more than the opinion of another (flawed) human. Secondly, I personally see no need for panic about global warming/floods/melting poles/extreme weather/CO2 etc etc etc. The reason for this is, I freely admit, an intuitive one rather than one based on me personally finding out facts rather than reading about the work of others. I feel very strongly that we enormously flatter ourselves, and that the planet is more than capable of dealing with our actions. What arrogance to think that we are responsible for the planet!! We are merely temporary guests here! Being responsible about the environment is one thing, creating panic and stating hypothesis as fact is quite another.

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:
How are your CHOLESTROL levels Rog? You'd be mad to increase them.

My cholesterol levels are fine Seskinreay - how's the road to oblivion? I hear we are due a drop of rain next week... you'd better get your 'aghhh - it's end of the world!!' messages prepared.

Rog.

PS - It's good to see you feel able to address me directly again after all your "tell Roger..." posts.

Called the "faint young sun paradox" billions of years ago.

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by realprimate:
Called the "faint young sun paradox" billions of years ago.

[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox]

You'll forgive my grammar I hope!

quote:

Originally posted by regster:
The thing that makes me shake my head in wonder is that all it takes is for a couple of scientists to make a claim which is then printed in the press or reported on by TV news, and everyone firstly becomes an expert then panics. So, first things first. Having an opinion is brilliant, but one should exercise extreme caution in how it's expressed. If I read a factual book then rehash the content as if it were mine, I would be a fool. I would equally be a fool to make any important decisions based on what I read, as it is no more than the opinion of another (flawed) human. Secondly, I personally see no need for panic about global warming/floods/melting poles/extreme weather/CO2 etc etc etc. The reason for this is, I freely admit, an intuitive one rather than one based on me personally finding out facts rather than reading about the work of others. I feel very strongly that we enormously flatter ourselves, and that the planet is more than capable of dealing with our actions. What arrogance to think that we are responsible for the planet!! We are merely temporary guests here! Being responsible about the environment is one thing, creating panic and stating hypothesis as fact is quite another.

Reg, I started on this tack all those months ago but just as with financial affairs I realised that past performance is not necessarily a guide to future wellbeing. What if the current warming curve just carries on going upward, exponentially, rather than gently reverting to a downward slide to an ice age? The thing that appears to be different is man's use of fossil fuels within the last 5 minutes.

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by realprimate:
Called the "faint young sun paradox" billions of years ago.

[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox]

You'll forgive my grammar I hope!

RP, forgiven and thanks for the figures. I look forward to the ripostes.

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:
How are your CHOLESTROL levels Rog? You'd be mad to increase them.

My cholesterol levels are fine Seskinreay - how's the road to oblivion? I hear we are due a drop of rain next week... you'd better get your 'aghhh - it's end of the world!!' messages prepared.

Rog.

PS - It's good to see you feel able to address me directly again after all your "tell Roger..." posts.

Rog, your talkin' to me again !! I knew you were out there. Did the black hole spit you out? Any answer to your defence of Durkin using inaccurate anologies (plasma vs cholesterol etc).

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:
How are your CHOLESTROL levels Rog? You'd be mad to increase them.

My cholesterol levels are fine Seskinreay - how's the road to oblivion? I hear we are due a drop of rain next week... you'd better get your 'aghhh - it's end of the world!!' messages prepared.

Rog.

PS - It's good to see you feel able to address me directly again after all your "tell Roger..." posts.

Rog, your talkin' to me again !! I knew you were out there. Did the black hole spit you out? Any answer to your defence of Durkin using inaccurate anologies (plasma vs cholesterol etc).

BTW, you take this far too seriously. Go get a bucket full of the black stuff down your neck and chill !!

quote:

Reg, I started on this tack all those months ago but just as with financial affairs I realised that past performance is not necessarily a guide to future wellbeing. What if the current warming curve just carries on going upward, exponentially, rather than gently reverting to a downward slide to an ice age? The thing that appears to be different is man's use of fossil fuels within the last 5 minutes.

Seskinreay, is a possible economic collapse a price worth paying though. I don't know your feelings on the matter but I don't really fancy moving back into the caves.

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:

quote:

Reg, I started on this tack all those months ago but just as with financial affairs I realised that past performance is not necessarily a guide to future wellbeing. What if the current warming curve just carries on going upward, exponentially, rather than gently reverting to a downward slide to an ice age? The thing that appears to be different is man's use of fossil fuels within the last 5 minutes.

Seskinreay, is a possible economic collapse a price worth paying though. I don't know your feelings on the matter but I don't really fancy moving back into the caves.

Neither do I. Who is scare mongering now?

The "supreme manifestation of life on earth" can surely innovate, prioritise and fund future clean energy sources a bit quicker than it is doing? And wouldn't that be a good idea no matter what the outcome of the AGW debate? The European funding of Fusion technology is welcome but is it enough?