Notice a trend?

The global warming we see now is NOT caused by solar activity

That is indeed true, the high solar activity is only responsible for local climate change over a small period of time.

Not sure what you’re trying to show with that graph LHS, other than natural cycles in temperature, CO2 and methane?

The actual bit we are interested in, the last 200 years, is a only a couple of pixels on the far right of that graph.

The actual bit we are interested in, the last 200 years, is a only a couple of pixels on the far right of that graph.

And I agree with you on that, however what about the little pixels at the peaks every 100,000 years. What happened then? Why did the temperatures decrease as dramatically as they increased? Those peaks occur over (very rough estimation) somewhere between 2000-5000 years. 200 years seems like a small period to measure ourselves against?

The ‘oh it’s happened loads of times in the past’ is a red herring to be honest. The world was not like it is now, we didn’t have millions of people poised on the brink of starvation or if we did no-one knew about it; it wasn’t our fault and we couldn’t do anything to mitigate or stop it. We mostly didn’t even exist.

95% of the Greenhouse Effect is caused by water vapour. The remaining 5% includes other gases including CO2 and methane.

Wrong. Although water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, its concentration is a function of temperature. It amplifies the extra warming effect caused by anthropogenic releases of greenhouse gases such as CO2, but does not cause it. This is an example of positive feedback.

CO2 represents 4/100 of 1% of atmospheric gases – it is not a major gas.

Wrong. If there were no CO2, it would be too cold for life to exist on earth. This is a matter of physics established over 100 years ago. Regarding concentrations: 0.00000075g of polonium will kill you.

CO2 levels and temperatures rose together long before cars, industrial revolution etc. Wonder why?

Because natural, as well as anthropogenic processes cause releases of CO2. Natural processes are fairly well understood and cannot explain the warming we are currently experiencing.

Maybe rising global temperatures (caused possibly by changes in solar activity) caused the earth’s oceans (quite big!!) to surrender CO2. Basic science – warm liquids hold less CO2 than cold ones. Hmm, no that sounds far more sense!!!

Wrong. The oceans are a sink, and not a source of CO2. If the oceans continue to warm up, it’s likely that their capacity to absorb CO2 will reduce. This is an example of positive feedback.

what about the little pixels at the peaks every 100,000 years. What happened then? Why did the temperatures decrease as dramatically as they increased? Those peaks occur over (very rough estimation) somewhere between 2000-5000 years.

All I can say is this isn’t news to anyone involved in climate research.

They are clever people. They are not just sat looking at graphs for the past 200 years to the exclusion of everything else.

They’ve looked at previous periods of warming and cooling. And the majority think that the current rise is out of step and occurring at a faster rate than any previous natural cycle.

The IPCC report covers natural cycles quite well.

All I can say is this isn’t news to anyone involved in climate research.

Not really concrete proof though is it? I am certain that no scientist would put their hand on their heart and state that they know with 100% certainty what happened over a period of 2000 years, 300,000 years ago to reverse a sharp rise in global temperatures.

read the IPCC report they have thought about this and the factors you mention. Again I note the complete and utter absence of any data in your philosophical attack …this is not science.

JY – I am shocked at you 😉 You really think that I haven’t been to the IPCC website. I am truly hurt. 😉

Ok Ransos!!

Wrong. Although water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, its concentration is a function of temperature. It amplifies the extra warming effect caused by anthropogenic releases of greenhouse gases such as CO2, but does not cause it. This is an example of positive feedback.

From the IPCC: “Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas” …Ok I was going for a bit of selective editing there (!!) because we then get..”carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one”.

There is positive feedback with both gases:

IPCC again: “as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle.”

and interestingly….

“This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.”

Wrong. If there were no CO2, it would be too cold for life to exist on earth.

Too selective. Too be fair you would need to argue, “if there were no greenhouse effect, it would be too cold for life to exist on earth.”

Oh and yes, JY, the greenhouse effect is a natural one (albeit one where human life has had an effect):

IPCC again, “The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at Earth’s surface would be below the freezing point of water. Thus, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible.”

And finally Ransos for balance the IPCC notes that:

” In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation. However, in the cold, dry polar regions, the effect of a small increase in CO2 or water vapour is much greater. The same is true for the cold, dry upper atmosphere where a small increase in water vapour has a greater influence on the greenhouse effect than the same change in water vapour would have near the surface.”

So please forgive me if I don’t accept your first point!

Now you lot are all much clever scientists than me obviously. So can you tell me: what happens to the amount of drink in my G&T (subsitute your tipple of choice) when the ice melts. Does the level go up, down or stay the same?

It is fairly amusing that some mountain biking schmo on a website can look at a graph and think they suddenly know more than people who’ve spent their whole careers studying climate.

Think about it, come on.

It is fairly amusing that some mountain biking schmo on a website can look at a graph and think they suddenly know more than people who’ve spent their whole careers studying climate.

Think about it, come on.

And I would ask you to do the same, don’t trust in blind faith.

Oh and good use on the use of “amusing” and “schmo” to help belittle a debate, why don’t you go the whole hog and call me a Daily Mail reading Denier! 😉

For the first time ever I am going to quote TJ from earlier today:

Critical thinking is the ability to decide for yourself from the evidcne offered.

Mol, I am glad that my children are being educated to think critically and to understand and be aware of how natural biases will always influence any material your are given to study.

So forgive me if I allow myself the same indulgence. And when there has been so much sculduggery in the whole area to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism.

I do not differ in conclusion from many other posters, despite what it seems, but I object to the way that the BBC/Channel 4 news and the New Scientist have taken one conclusion and tried to thrust another conclusion down our throats!

And Mol, let’s take your analogy further with an emotive subject – eg, bankers. You could equally say that “how can some mountain biking schmo on a website, look at a newspaper article and think they suddenly know more than people who’ve spent their whole careers studying finance and conclude that all bankers are…..{insert your adjective of choice}.”

Because this sort of thing happens the whole time!

And Mol:

Yes; the type, frequency and intensity of extreme events are expected to change as Earth’s climate changes, and these changes could occur even with relatively small mean climate changes. Changes in some types of extreme events have already been observed, for example, increases in the frequency and intensity of heat waves and heavy precipitation events (see FAQ 3.3).

Scientists have studied this issue and come to the opposite conclusion: extreme events are becoming LESS common. Atlantic hurricanes were much more numerous from 1950 to 1975 than from 1975 to present. Hailstorms in the US are 35% less common than they were fifty years ago. Extreme rainfall in the US at the end of the 20th century is comparable to what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Roger Pielke, Jr, in the journal Climatic Change (1999) said “it is essentially impossible to attribute any particular weather event to global warming.”

So think about it, come on 😉

And I would ask you to do the same, don’t trust in blind faith

What makes you think I am? I evaluate evidence as I see it, but the issue is that we only see media reports which are most emphatically not the whole story. The point is that you CAN’T come to any kind of meaningful conclusion by browsing a few graphs and reading some reports. You have to really make the effort to understand the science, which is what the scientists are doing.

Critical thinking is an excellent passtime, and one in which I engage regularly, but to think you can have a quick gander at some published evidence (or even a long one) and draw a conclusion anything like as useful as the countless experiments and computer models and the scientific leg-work done day in day out in universities the world over is a bit silly, isn’t it?

Unless you are doing the science, or closely involved, you can’t really disagree with the things that the scientist are saying, on the whole. There are certainly some things on which you can call them up though, of course – we are all human.

And Mol, let’s take your analogy further with an emotive subject – eg, bankers.

Let’s not. The two things are completely different. With the economy you’ve got a few people trying to figure out something that’s practically un-knowable, and a great many people trying to f*ck it over to make cash in the shorter term. When you can make a huge profit from causing problems, and an even bigger one from gambling recklessly, is it any surprise that it went tits up?

Two totally different situations.

draw a conclusion anything like as useful as the countless experiments and computer models and the scientific leg-work done day in day out in universities the world over is a bit silly, isn’t it?

My point exactly – which is why I felt annoyed that the media and mags like NS chose to present the Berkely Report findings in a misleading way to suit their own agenda. But this is of course, circular reasoning, because critical thinking allows you to understand that anyway.

Unless of course you accept Grum’s hypothesis from the Europe thread that the vast majority of the population will swallow what the popular press and TV will feed them without question.

But Mol, your edit has ruined your argument. By saying:

and a great many people trying to f*ck it over to make cash in the shorter term. When you can make a huge profit from causing problems, and an even bigger one from gambling recklessly, is it any surprise that it went tits up?

…you are demonstrating exactly the same behaviour as you are objecting to above.

And I agree with you on that, however what about the little pixels at the peaks every 100,000 years. What happened then? Why did the temperatures decrease as dramatically as they increased? Those peaks occur over (very rough estimation) somewhere between 2000-5000 years. 200 years seems like a small period to measure ourselves agains

LHS – have you not heard of Milankovich Forcing…

A bloke told me once, if someone can’t explain to you why we have different seasons on this planet then they have nothing to say worth listening to as regards climate research.

With the economy you’ve got a few people trying to figure out something that’s practically un-knowable, and a great many people trying to f*ck it over to make cash in the shorter term. When you can make a huge profit from causing problems, and an even bigger one from gambling recklessly, is it any surprise that it went tits up?

Maybe not quite so different after all eh? 😉

But Mol, your edit has ruined your argument. By saying:

[quoted text]

…you are demonstrating exactly the same behaviour as you are objecting to above.

Quite right, good spot. However my point stands that they are very different situations. One science, one profiteering.

THM it is pretty pointless you taking little extracts from the IPCC report when their conclusion is pretty clear about what they think is the cause of the current warming and the role of man made C02 in it.
I assume you are not suggesting that they dont think the cause is AGW so why use selected extracts to “prove your point” or counter its own conclusions. If anything it supports the point they have considered everything. I sort of get your points but it is clutching at straws/unwise to use the IPCC to support your view.

Molgrips makes some good points hence why we get philosophical points then you using a report that concludes AGW is occurring as proof [ or to support if you prefer] it is not and other things are more/equally important.
Next week shall we try and cure cancer?

I should have realised you would have read it as well sorry 😳

LHS – have you not heard of Milankovich Forcing…

I have, yes.

What’s your point?

I evaluate evidence as I see it

And to your point, there is no conclusive evidence available.

One science, one profiteering.

Which one’s which? 😉

There never is LHS – however when the vast majority of climate scientists say one thing and the deniers are so lacking in rigour then its pretty easy to be 99% sure.

You seem pretty convinced about helmets with much less good data 😉

You seem pretty convinced about helmets with much less good data

I won’t point out the irony in your statement! 😉

however when the vast majority

People used to think the earth was flat, the moon was made of cheese, the rain followed the plow and the earth was only 6000 years old.

I stated previously that I am not a climate sceptic (denier as the fools like to refer to it), however no matter how much you insist there is, there is no evidence to say that we are in nothing more than a peak in a natural cycle.

There is plenty of evidence – read the report referred to above for starters. The key bit IMO is the way the CO2 rise is leading the climate change when in natural cycles it lags.

If you don’t want to believe its up to you but to say there is no evidence is frankly laughable

People used to think the earth was flat, the moon was made of cheese, the rain followed the plow and the earth was only 6000 years old.

Not via scientific methods they didn’t.

If scientists could just prove 100% that burning huge hydrocarbon reserves over a couple hundred years has 0% effect on the climate, I could get myself a bloody car again!
The headwind today coming home…sheesh!

And to your point, there is no conclusive evidence available

No.. conclusive evidence is a luxury, however I personally am of the opinion that it is quite likely that AGR is a reality (hahah yes I know re the other thread of today).

however no matter how much you insist there is, there is no evidence to say that we are in nothing more than a peak in a natural cycle

Really? So how do you explain all the scientists saying that there is?

If you don’t want to believe

I didn’t realise it was a religion now? 😉

TJ, you have this ‘belief’ that helmets cause more accidents than without, you are entitled to your opinion.

To say something laughable is just a belittling (disappointing) statement, especially when you can’t show me science that backs up that statement.

So how do you explain all the scientists saying that there is?

The same “robust” scientists made some pretty mind boggling, incorrect sweeping generalisations about glaciers, sea levels and quite a few other things.

TJ, you have this ‘belief’ that helmets cause more accidents than without, you are entitled to your opinion.

No I do not. I have never said that. 🙄

However its beside the point. Which is that you believe in the efficacy of helmets when the evidence is far from conclusive when on climate despite far stronger evidence that is far more conclusive you won’t believe the conclusion.

That is not a rational position.

Evidence – lots been posted on this thread. Here is a link to teh gold standard
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

on climate despite far stronger evidence that is far more conclusive

That is where I will strongly disagree with you.

And LHS – there in a nutshell is your argument. Rubbish anyone who disagrees with you with a gross distortion of their position, ignore any evidence and data that does not agree with your position.

The same “robust” scientists made some pretty mind boggling, incorrect sweeping generalisations about glaciers, sea levels and quite a few other things.

What, all of them? How many scientists are we talking about here? The IPCC ones, or the others?

You do realise scientists are not one cohesive small group, don’t you? Maybe this is why you are confused with all the different things being said?

And LHS TJ – there in a nutshell is your argument. Rubbish anyone who disagrees with you with a gross distortion of their position, ignore any evidence and data that does not agree with your position

Fixed it for you.

Seriously though, if you ask for evidence, you point me to a website full of papers. Why can’t you show me a single piece of information which categorically shows me that i’m wrong?

What, all of them?

No

The IPCC ones

Yes

You do realise scientists are not one cohesive small group

Yes

Maybe this is why you are confused with all the different things being said?

No confusion here.

Next belittling statement to try and strengthen your position?

The most popular are Denier and Daily mail reader.

Why can’t you show me a single piece of information which categorically shows me that i’m wrong?

Cos there isn’t any. However there’s quite a bit of evidence that suggests likelihood.

If you only ever want categorical proof before acting then you are…well… daft.

Daft

good one.

I can re-phrase that if you like. Dismissing anything that is not categorical is daft.

Tell me why you’re not daft..?

Are you saying that evidence has to amount to categorical proof before it can be important?

I know what your response will be to this statement, but I genuinely don’t have the energy or see the point in discussing any further. We will never agree so best to leave it there.

You can add one final post if you like calling me a name, i’ll even provide a space below for you

insert comment here___________________________

I didn’t call you a name, I described your actions. I’d like to hear you describe mine, because I still don’t understand your point of view.

there is no evidence to say that we are in nothing more than a peak in a natural cycle.

burning fossil fuels is natural then and has no effect and it has no effect on natural cycles…could you explain that to me?

I dont see how you can debate that point tbh. You may debate the effects but I dont see how you can describe the current reliance on oil and subsequent release of stored carbon as a natural cycle – it is obviously man made. Given cause and effect and the natural cycle is still there we must be affecting it- how much and what are the consequences are the appropriate questions.

The same “robust” scientists made some pretty mind boggling, incorrect sweeping generalisations about glaciers, sea levels and quite a few other things.

There are only real two neither if which is that strong. the first is the stronger claim. Considering how much data they use and claims they make it is not proof that the overall report is false or incorrect. I very much doubt a scientific report of that size has ever been so thoroughly analysed for error and omisssion [ by people determined to show it is wrong] and yet that is the best they can do. Not great but not enough to refute it all either.

Himalayan glaciers: In a regional chapter on Asia in Volume 2, written by authors from the region, it was erroneously stated that 80% of Himalayan glacier area would very likely be gone by 2035. This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts (such as our colleague Georg Kaser from Austria, who first discovered the Himalaya error in the WG2 report). There are also several pages on future glacier decline in Chapter 10 (“Global Climate Projections”), where the proper projections are used e.g. to estimate future sea level rise. So the problem here is not that the IPCC’s glacier experts made an incorrect prediction. The problem is that a WG2 chapter, instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place. Fixing this error involves deleting two sentences on page 493 of the WG2 report.

Sea level in the Netherlands: The WG2 report states that “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”. This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has now published a correction stating that the sentence should have read “55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding”. It surely will go down as one of the more ironic episodes in its history when the Dutch parliament last Monday derided the IPCC, in a heated debate, for printing information provided by … the Dutch government. In addition, the IPCC notes that there are several definitions of the area below sea level. The Dutch Ministry of Transport uses the figure 60% (below high water level during storms), while others use 30% (below mean sea level). Needless to say, the actual number mentioned in the report has no bearing on any IPCC conclusions and has nothing to do with climate science, and it is questionable whether it should even be counted as an IPCC error.

From the IPCC: “Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas” …Ok I was going for a bit of selective editing there (!!) because we then get..”carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one”.

There is positive feedback with both gases:

IPCC again: “as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle.”

and interestingly….

“This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.”

All of which is entirely consistent with what I said. So what’s your point?

Too selective. Too be fair you would need to argue, “if there were no greenhouse effect, it would be too cold for life to exist on earth.”

Of which CO2 is a principal constituent. Therefore, without it, life would not exist.

Next!