People are a contrary bunch. Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than the recent fashion for dismissing global warming as a load of hot air. Indeed, it has become de rigueur to attribute recent increases in global temperatures to something other than human industrial activity and the consequent emission of various greenhouse …
It would be useful for you to state what is meant by "solar activity" in this paper. A recent similar story pointed to sunspot activity currently being at its highest since the medieval warming period 1,000 years ago, correlating nicely with both that and the maunder minimum (the little ice age).
Evidence is there you just have to look; and not that hard.
This is another case where the media has looked that hard;
1) Temperature has an inbuilt lag; this is cause by the thermal capacity of the oceans
2) the 800 year lag between temperature rise and carbon dioxide is a massive blow to the greenhouse theory.
3) Dr Lockwood says that if there was a lag 'begin to see the rise in global temperatures slowing down' RE:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2123447,00.html
Which is what we have seen since 2000 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/HadCRUGNS_3plots.gif.
So thanks to Dr Lockwood; for proving that this is a real and viable theory.
The axial tilt of the earth *do* affect the climate, maybe more than the suns intensity.
But the one argument I still haven't seen any man attributed global warming-believers explain is the fact that many other planets in this solar system is warming up just as much as the earth.
I'm so sorry to give 'fresh' air to the sceptics side, but I couldnt help myself.
There is that little thing called thermal inertia, that makes that the coldest hours of the day are at dawn, that the hottest ones are at sunset.
The same effect can be seen seasonally, with the hottest months of the year not being those of maximum solar irradiation (may / june - peak - / july ) but late july / august instead.
Same applies to winter, with the peak at december, and coldest months january and february.
So if there is a decline in the power sent by the sun, in a 6000 yr cycle, can be expected that the temperatures will rise for the next 300 years before starting to fall.
Of course, i saw that the _rate_ is still increasing, and I agree that the rate should slow down, but in a 6000 yr cycle, 22 years isn't a lot of a span.
Albert, fom hot, sunny catalunya (spain).
Sun is not damaging
I bet Jonathan Schwartz is well pleased with this report.
I would have thought that the energy that sun uses would add quite a lot to the CO2 levels :)
Hands up everyone here who is qualified to argue with two (Very) Eminent experts on solar variation? No one? No? Then shut up!
I see on el Reg so often "My users tell me what to do" "People I work with think they can talk to me about computers" etc. You are worse than the whiny person who installed XP so thinks they know how a computer works.
Now I'll have to come with another cock and bull theory so that I don't have to get off my fat lazy arse and recycle.
All wrong - Aliens cause global warming
OK, so there's no proof, any more than there is proof that the sun or humans cause climate change. But Michael Crichton's article of the same name points out rather beautifully that any claim of a scientific 'consensus' is no science at all, and that anyone who claims there is such a consensus is doing so for political rather than scientific reasons - in this case power and money. I'm playing 'consensus' bingo with every chicken little article I read now - including this one?... BINGO! (Third paragraph from the end)
So it's good science to examine data from 1985 forwards and conclude anything about cycles that may be as long as 400.000 years but bad science to question theories by pointing to contrary observations. Yes. Very good. Now please, if someday you learn anything about science do tell us, we'll still be here...
That's why it's bloody cold then
So there's no solar activity, and the temperature in mid-July is about 13C. That, I can certainly believe, although it sounds more like a global cooling to me.
Thing is, when it's hot, they say "That's because of Global Warming!". And when it's cold, they say "That's because of Global Warming!".
I have a better name for it: Weather.
RE: sunspots & planetary warming
This article - http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn6591 - states that the sunspot researchers don't believe sunspots can be cited as a key factor in the temperature rise.
With regards to other planets warming.... can you cite a source for 'most' (and indeed 'as much as')? There are a lot of other planetary bodies, and there's also natural variation (Mars, for example, is currently believed to be undergoing a Malinkovich cycle causing warming, I believe); but if it was due to some solar constant like the suns' output then it'd surely require every planet to warm, not just some or even 'most'. Plus I think it'd be more unexpected if the planets weren't undergoing some sort of climatic change at any point in time.
Also, it's curious that (for example) global dimming is never mentioned in these little comments sections, as it's likely this is masking the true temperature rise (such as one effect of banning all flights during 9/11 being a significant temperature rise in the US).
Another thing regarding the 800 year lag
The author of the paper that discovered the 800 year lag concluded that the lag “is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing” (see 1730 of http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf)
The "Great Global Warning Swindle"
Whether the "Great Global Warning Swindle" was wholly accurate is to my mind not the most import issue. The program certainly raised issues that need to be addressed. We are constantly told by the media that their is consensus in the scientific community about the causes of global warning and there clearly is not. When scientists have to threaten court action to have their names removed from paper because they are either being miss-represented or were not even consulted then there is something seriously wrong.
Also it is right to point out that where ever you find a correlation you have to at least consider which factor is driving the relationship.
In order to have good science you need to have informed discussion. The program did certainly present many things that should be discussed.
OK, here someone is saying that all gobal warning in the past is caused by solar activity, but this one is caused by man made CO2.
It will be interesting to read this paper.
The problem with media reporting of science is that it's fundamentally flawed (El Reg being one of the few exceptions). Mainstream media needs a hook on which to hang the story, and what better hook than the good old 'renegade scientist fighting a global conspiracy'.
Often as not, the reason said scientists isn't being heard is because peer review and debate, the main methods of establishing scientific validity, have failed to support the hypothesis. As Lockwood says, solar heating was an interesting theory 15 years ago, and it had some effect into the start of this century, but it's been discredited and it's time to move on and accept that the actions of almost 10 billion people can have a strong effect on global climate.
We've seen this kind of lazy reporting time and time again with the GM potatoes, mobile phone masts, and most recently with wi-fi. But it makes a good story and gives the reactionaries something to crow about. It doesn't mean it's right.
Lockwood and Frohlich should be sent back to the remedial class. It isn't possible to make any meaningful climate change extrapolations with just 22 years' worth of data. As Ms.Sherriff herself admits:
"Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that long-term variations (over a century or so) in solar output can influence climate."
Why does The Register give a free pass to bad science when its supports the anthropogenic CO2 argument?
"The questions have since been settled."
Sun not to blame, IBM under suspiscion
Uncomfirmed rumors are now accusing IBM activity of warming planet.
If Sun Theory Is Rubbish Then Why Is CERN Looking In To It?
I've just spent the last week reading Henrik Svenmark and Nigel Calder's excellent book 'The Chilling Stars'. It pretty much proves the link between cosmic rays/sun and climate throughout Earth's history. It shows how thin the science is on CO2.
What is very interesting is that the proponents of the sun/cosmic ray theory have secured funding for the CLOUD experiment at CERN in 2010. If it were bogus science then surely CERN would not be interested?
The evidence and serious science from the authors is very convincing, I would recommend the book to anyone interested in the subject.
As an aside BBC news last night suggested that methane from cattle contibutes to 7% of UK greenhouse gas output (more than cars and aircraft). If we believe in the greenhouse theory shouldn't we all become veggie to save the planet?
This topic has become so skewed because of the media. It is not just about 'Global Warming', it is about climate chaos. We are going to have to deal with weather patterns that we have no experience in dealing with. It is not just CO2 that is the problem, it is all greenhouse gases combined. Some areas of the world will experience cooler weather, others hotter and it is these conditions that cause the weather to be all f***ed up. Just have a look at how many natural disasters have occured in a very short space of time and still say nothing is changing. Britain should not have experienced rain like we recently have causing massive damage, nor should we be seeing small tornados on a regular basis yet we are. California should not have had freezing temperatures when the orange crop was due and yet they had some of the coldest weather on record. This is happening to every country all over the world. How stupid must we be to sit back and say 'we don't need to do anything'? Regardless of whether or not we are a major cause of these changes, anyone looking at the evidence cannot deny we are contributing and we must look at ways to help reduce the impact even if only a little. We need to do it now before we see situations where a loaf of bread or a sack of potatoes costs a whole weeks wages due to acres of farmland and crops being wiped out. Food shortages are nothing new in some areas of the world, but in the west we are too used to everything being there on demand. We don't realise that a disaster in another country in turn affects us at home but this will happen more and more. Forget ipods, mobiles and all the other 'essentials' you can't live without, if the weather keeps throwing things at us everyone will have to realise that the most important things are food and shelter and there will be little of both.
Please don't make the mistake of stating that the recent UK floods are caused by man made global warming. Our current summer weather is more than likely caused by the La Niña weather pattern.
"La Niña is characterized by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific, as compared to El Niño, which is characterized by unusually warm ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific"
re Dr. Stephen Jones
"Lockwood and Frohlich should be sent back to the remedial class"
Well spotted, I suggest you get in touch with the Royal Society (who published it) and request that they withdraw and/or re-review it.
danny came out to play, but missed the sun
Danny, you miss the point. The weather is changing , fact. The debate is over what is driving the change. And further if (as in some places in the UK) getting fined for not correctly seperating out cans from plastic bottles, is going to have any positive environmental impact, or is the tax man riding the green money train.
You refer to the normal weather, but you must remember we dont live in a time (as in the last 10 0000 years) when there earths environment could be considered in its "normal state".
look outside the window
not that warm, is it, this summer?
the earth has been changing its climate up and down over millenia. Now the boffins tell us that CO2 levels are at unprecedented levels, if we grant them that they know how to drill ice and measure old atmospheric data. (When I was in college these kind of dull measurement works were given to lab monkeys, technicians with little wit or motivation to do the job properly)
but let's say that it's true that we are choked with CO2. Then what? we're like Venus? Hardly! If this is indeed uncharted territory, then science has little to say. Models and simulations can interpolate, never extrapolate. Induction as used by hot weather cassandras is outside its remit.
we're too insignificant to amount to much on this planet
another scientist that doesn't buy "global warming"
If it were bogus science
Well maybe CERN has to look into it to judge whether or not it is, in fact, bogus ?
There is one thing that is sure : the perpetual motion machine is bogus science. That is fact and no scientist worth his diploma will say the contrary, nor will you see CERN fund a project on that.
For all the rest, well if it holds up in theory then someone has to check it, right ?
As for what is causing global warming warming, I submit that we have very scarce data to go on (less than 200 years total, and probably most of it is very much less reliable than what we've had in the past 30 years). There is, as of yet, no accurate model of weather on a planetary scale, although the meteorologists, aided by ever-more-powerful computers and increasing data points, are doing their damndest to get there.
We are, as of now, capable of predicting tomorrow's weather within an acceptable accuracy in terms of living conditions, but certainly not in terms of scientific certainty. We can have an insight into what the weather will be in a week's time, but more often than not we are dead wrong.
In short, it amazes me that, given the admittedly overwhelming difficulty of comprehending and modeling thermodynamics, people can use barely a century of reliable weather data to state that the cause of climate change is one thing or the other, or even that our climate is changing and not just going through a variation of some sort.
Personally, I do believe that something is going on. I used to see snow on the ground in winter that lasted weeks at a time - it's been fifteen to twenty years since a snowstorm left the ground white for more than a few days. My mother used to tell me stories of how she sometimes went to school in her childhood in a sled, drawn by her father - fat chance my daughter would get to do that, even excepting that her school is a bit too far for that kind of trek anyway. And I do believe that we are currently living the very worst "summer" I have ever experienced in a string of summers of decreasing quality.
So something is certainly happening, but I think we're going to need at least a few more centuries of data before we know whether it's getting hotter or colder.
In the meantime, maybe we should kill 2 or 3 billion people and find out if that brings us back to 1700s weather patterns.
Not that we will, of course (we won't, right ?), but hey, billions more people raising billions more livestock should count for nothing ?
Nah, that can't be. There has got to be an impact. Pass me the salt so I can think it over while munching on this juicy steak.
Everyone Missed The Point
The most important element in this article was the vague mention of a Panda Safari in a turbocharged Humvee. SIGN ME UP.
Or at least let me drive the turbocharged hummer. Right through a mac retail outlet preferably. Now there's a safari.
Self-loathing carbon nutters
Danny - can I borrow your hair-shirt? And maybe that stick you keep beating yourself over the head with, too?
"Regardless of whether or not we are a major cause of these changes ... we must look at ways to help reduce the impact even if only a little."
Translation: "I hate myself and recommend everyone get poorer and more miserable so I can feel better".
Thanks for that contribution.
Articles and tv-shows don't cut it
Don't base your opinion on this theory on articles and tv-shows.
If you want to hav an opinion on the sun-spot theory, read the latest contribution from the leading scientists in this field - "The chilling stars" or the old "The manic sun", both detailing the findings of Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark.
Read those books, form your opinion.
Another reason giant nuclear reactors are a bad idea, it almost burnt my skin off once.
look outside the window?
> not that warm, is it, this summer?
> Models and simulations can interpolate, never extrapolate
And that, Nikos the scientist, is your argument? What was your major? I hope to god it wasn't nuclear fission or we're f*cked. Couple of observations:
1. You can't infer global conditions from local events. This is Common Sense 101, a prerequisite for Science 101.
2. Models can be used for extrapolation. Ever seen a predicted population curve? How accurate the extrapolation is depends on the accuracy of the model and data, yes, and if that's what you're attempting to argue then I agree. But "never" is a big word to use, and you bandy it about at your peril.
If you really want to get into this I'd suggest www.realclimate.org, which boasts "climate science by climate scientists". Or you can keep waving your arms about, up to you.
(doctorate in theology bought on the 'net for a tenner, which makes me as qualified as Dr Gillian McKeith and overqualified for this debate)
Oh, OK, situation normal all fouled up, then
What a relief. For a while I thought our fig-leaf of an excuse for the IMF, the World Bank, the fractional reserve banking system, and our beloved leaders' and the multinationals' foreign policy of smash-and-grab economics for the rest was about to wither. Fortunately this latest piece of "research" means we can look forward to continuing in the forefront of "civilization" and "development", just as we buy in their raw materials with credit (dollar and carbon) we lend them and orders on how they can and cannot spend it.
It's the old whore of babylon rope trick - first deceive to seduce, then oppress to steal. So let's see "Global Warming" for what it is: middle class, white collar racism hiding behind the veil of (junk) science and a specious concept of rationality, catering to a particular kind of intellectual narcissism.
Almost forgot the IT angle. Computer modelling. Generate some random ordered pairs of numbers. Give them to a computer. Ask it to infer a relationship. Watch it output a straight line. "Some call it gladness, I call it madness."
Polly Toynbee, is that you...?
As the True Believers are wont to say - who exactly is paying these guys anyway?
Even if accepted that humans have tipped the balance, then I don't believe that making life miserable for all is going to do anything significant to change things. Just allows a few to think they're doing something. So why aren't the authorities being told what they can do with their bins and stuff ? If they want to recycle (rather than reuse as we used to) then take a few folk off the dole and get it sorted it at the depot.
Want to turn this around ? First thing is to stop breeding like there are no consequences. Humans are supposed to have more intelligence than bacteria in a petri dish. There's no gold cup for leaving behind more offspring that you are your partner will remove when you depart this mortal coil. Secondly start praying for technology to come up with a new clean source of power. It's either that or back to the life of a Middle Ages peasant for all.
solar forcing and climate change
In P.R. Goode and E.Palle, Shortwave Forcing of the earth's climate: Modern and historical variations in the sun's irradiance and the earth's reflectance, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2007), doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2007.06.011, the authors conclude: I quote,
..the Sun cannot have been any dimmer than it is at the most recent activity minima. We have also shown how concurrent changes in the Earth's reflectance can produce a much larger climate impact over relatively short time scales. Thus, a possible Sun-albedo link, would have the potential to produce large climate effects without the need for significant excursions in solar irradiance...Regardless of its possible solar ties, we have seen how the Earth's large scale reflectance - and the short wavelength part of the Earth's radiation budget is a much more variable climate parameter than previously thought and, thus, deserves to be studied in as much detail as changes in the Sun's output or changes in the Earth's atmospheric infrared emission produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases....
CERN and the Science
Re CERN: The work done by Svensmark et al. has gone a part of the way to showing something that could affect climate: Cosmic Rays can create ions, which could cause water droplets to form.
They couldn't generate cosmic rays : the CERN accelerator can. Hence, CERN
can help prove this effect. It would be a worthwhile experiment.
From there to "Cosmic Rays explain all Climate Change", which Svensmark claims, is a huge leap: you need first to prove:
- the small molecules (DMS molecules of 0.1 um size, I think) do grow into large ones, large enough to seed water droplets.
- That water droplets then form, and this leads to clouds.
- That this leads to more clouds than you would otherwise get.
- That this leads to climate change.
Lots of work. You're far from there yet.
Svensmark claimed that the warming up to 1950 - 1980 or so was due to solar cycles, and that temperatures would decline as solar activity declined.
It didn't, as Lockwood shows.
Theres more to it than that, for a detailed scientific discussion, go to the "Real Climate" blog.
How does Lockwood explain warming on other planets?
Mars is warming:
(Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)
Pluto is warming:
(Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html)
Saturn's south pole is warming:
(Saturn's Strange Hot Spot, http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/news/science/saturn/)
Jupiter has a second large storm:
(New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html)
Neptune may be warming:
(Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml)
Neptune's moon Triton is warming:
(Global Warming Detected on Triton, http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml)
> "First thing is to stop breeding like there are no consequences."
Does it never occur to malthusians and others who expeditiously hitch up to the population argument, that they might have cause and effect reversed? That high birth rates are consequent on high infant mortality rates, and that economic development will tend to limit population growth? It would seem that for some the right of those not in the "consensus" "community" to have children is to be treated as supernumerary as say their right to economic development. Except that the real consensus remains stubbornly sceptical regarding the GWS, as described here http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2117913,00.html
> "Second start praying"
Really ironic. Which god did you have in mind - Mammon (loves money) or Moloch (loves blood) or ...? Even the demigod Dawkins (loves ???) believes in his gene's right to unzip itself into two.
Love for alternative thories aside, you can't ignore the CO2
What a lot of people are missing, is that even if you find another plausible explanation for the warming, you can't just ignore the CO2.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This an absolute, and undisputable scientific fact. (yes, we actually have some of those in science, it is not all models and hypotheses). This we know from looking at the CO2-molecule in particle physics and radiation physics. We can accurately decide the absorption and emmission properties of the molecule, as well as its scattering properties, all as a function of wavelenght. CO2 does interact effectively with infrared light, "heat radiation", of the wavelenghts the Earth emmits. Spectroscopy will tell you the same thing.
Millions of years of data(ice cores, acidity of sediments, erosion rates, fossils ++) tells us that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere has varied between 100PPM (parts per million) in cool periods to 200PPM in warm periodes. It is now 400PPM.
(This is from the big international report released not so long ago. Don't remember it's name at the moment..)
This increase in CO2 is our fault. We know this by measuring the isotope "fingerprint" of the carbon. (you can tell very accurately which coal mine or oil field the fuel was hauled from. In the atmosphere they mix of course, but you can still tell CO2 from breathing, volcanism or industrial use apart very easily)
So: The increased CO2 content in the atmosphere would predict a rise in global temperatures. And lo and behold! - there it is! The global temperatures have increased, with roughly the same rate as the CO2 content would predict. ("roughly" because of lags, and various feedback mechanisms, both positive and negative)
2 + 2 = 4
We are having a global warming, and it is our fault.
Ah, you say, but what about
2 + 2 - 2 + 2 =4?
What if there is another effect, which cancels out the effect of the CO2, and then the actual increase in temperatures are coming from something else, a natural effect of some sort, say solar activity? Can you boffins absolutely exclude that possibility?
No. But they are working on it. As we get more evidence, we are able to better estimate the "fit" of the two models. The current status is that there is a 90% confidence for the 2+2=4 model, which should be sufficient. (absolute proof in an empiric science comes only after the fact, and will then be irrelevant)
So for all of you that want to believe in the alternative theories(and if you do choose to believe the 2+2-2+2=4 verion it is not because evidence nor logic supports it, because you want to verrry, verry much..), just finding another "heat source", (be that increase in solar radiation, variations in cosmic radiation, increased dynamic friction against the interstellar medium, variations in the Earths albedo, or aliens with a huge microwave beam pointing our way) is not enough. You can't just ignore the CO2. It is there, and it is heating us up. Regardless of you heat source of choice, you must also find a cancelling effect!
PS. Computer models, unreliable as they are, are not used to predict/prove global warming, or the effects of CO2. Those are given. The models are only used to predict the RESULTS of global warming on climate and weather patterns in the time to come. These might be wrong, and are frequently disputed, but those disputes does not call in to question the solidity of the CO2->global warming theory. The media, and most people, doesn't seem to differentiate these things very well.
Bored with football?
Same old arguments over and over again ad nauseam. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong - but who can judge? - And is it productive? There are clearly some intelligent and knowledgeable people making internet posts on this subject - but again, who's in a position to judge the truth of it? Evidently, there are also about 50 million wannabe scientists who never made the grade but suddenly know all the answers. Maybe they're bored with football so they back a Climate Change team.
This cannot be resolved on the basis of who shouts loudest. We have no reasonable option than to rely on the experts in the relevant fields to supply the facts.
"CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This an absolute, and undisputable scientific fact. (yes, we actually have some of those in science, it is not all models and hypotheses). This we know from looking at the CO2-molecule in particle physics and radiation physics. We can accurately decide the absorption and emmission properties of the molecule, as well as its scattering properties, all as a function of wavelenght. CO2 does interact effectively with infrared light, "heat radiation", of the wavelenghts the Earth emmits. Spectroscopy will tell you the same thing."
Here's another undisputed fact - Carbon dioxide makes up about 350 parts per million in our atmosphere. That's approximately one third of one tenth of one percent.
and another undisputed fact - carbon dioxide makes up less than 5 percent of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
Oh, and one more - the VAST majority of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is STILL naturally occuring.
Any more facts we should consider?
Mars warming due to solar activity? Likely not.
Real climate scientists debunk or confirm your favorite Global Warming theories at this excellent site.
Also good for insomniacs.
>"This an absolute, and undisputable scientific fact. (yes, we actually have some of those in science, it is not all models and hypotheses)."
While I won't address the validity of the fact you are stating, my symbolic logic professor would rap my knuckles if I didn't point out that science suffers from the problem of induction.
/back to polishing my "grue" emeralds
Said before, but worth repeating
Mars is warming up as well, so something is doing that, could be the same thing as here on Earth.
"I could be wrong now, but I dont't think so! (Its a jungle out there!)".
This is not about the means of subsistence, this is about the Earth's inability to cope with the byproducts of modern living, when the population is the size it presently is. Please, feel free to pray to any God you personally feel is important in your life. It's no skin off my nose which you select.
@ Luther Blisset
>"First thing is to stop breeding like there are no consequences."
"Does it never occur to malthusians and others who expeditiously hitch up to the population argument, that they might have cause and effect reversed? That high birth rates are consequent on high infant mortality rates, and that economic development will tend to limit population growth?"
You seem to have confused population growth with high birth rate. The population of the planet has virtually doubled since the Unix epoch (roughly 3.5 billion), that is not necessarily because of "high birth rates" but a continued birth rate > death rate.
Also, you state to think that economic development is a limit on population size when it could equally be said, in this consumer driven economic era, that population is the limit of economic development. "cause and effect reversed"?
Thanks Karsten - I see your point. Yes, eventually the "modellers" will be able to make their models perfectly fit the a priori assumptions, much like this Professor of Comedy (Southampton University) Lockwood has done here.
It ain't science, though. The science hasn't even begun.
What do we do now the "Real Climate" scaremongers have been outed as the nasty little self-hating Puritans they are?
Hands up anyone here with a PhD in a relevant subject?
None? What a surprise.
Sun's activity? Of course not! It was Microsoft :D
Sun's activity? Of course not! It was Microsoft :D
You don't need a PHD in a subject to have an opinion on it. Sometimes the stupidity of the conclusions are so obvious a basic GCSE will do fine.
2+2 = MISLEADING
Application of the 2+2=4 (or 2+2-2+2=4, for that matter) logic to climate modeling is incorrect. The earth's climate is not a linear system, and therefore the principle of superposition does not apply, i.e., the relative contribution of a particular effect is not generally independent of other effects and of system state.
Thus, determination of the contribution of CO2 in isolation, or in combination with a limited number of other climate forcing factors is insufficient to reliably guarantee an accurate extrapolation to the more complex, real-world environment. Accurate modeling of the complex interdependencies amongst forcing effects is crucial.
This is what I KNOW. A cloudy night is warmer than a clear night. Hence water in the form of clouds must be a greenhouse gas. The result of burning fossil fuels is mainly CO2 and Water. There are many more water molecules produced than carbon molecules when it is burnt. Is water a greenhouse gas? Is there more of it in our atmosphere?
We should not be burning fossil fuels, my point has nothing to do with the weather. They are a finite resource and are used to manufacture everything from clothing, high tech equipment, furniture, motor vehicles, building materials and so on. Sending coal and oil up in smoke is short sighted and a waste that future generations will rue.
The human race will find a way of living with climate change, it will never be able to prevent it.
Random response to Glenn
About water - fossil fuels are basically long chains of CH2, so complete combustion produces one molecule of CO2 and one of water per link. The water produced doesn't add to the existing greenhouse effect because it precipitates out of the atmosphere in a few weeks.
Cloud cover prevents heat loss from the Earth but it also prevents heat gain from the Sun. A lot depends on what type of cloud, where and when.
"Sending coal and oil up in smoke is short sighted and a waste that future generations will rue." A recent visit to a science museum produced this gem: we have 300 years of known coal reserves and coal currently accounts for 74% of global energy use.
"Piers Corbyn on the Lockwood paper:
News 13th July from WeatherAction the Long Range Forecasters
"The Global warmers have played their last card. Professor Lockwood's attack on solar activity as a driver of Climate is a two-legged stool"
Piers Corbyn astrophysicist, speaking on BBC Radio 5 and BBC TV News24 TV on 11 July, attacked Prof Mike Lockwood for his ridiculous claims of evidence that solar activity did not drive climate change and described Lockwood's recent paper as "old news re-presented in a profoundly misleading manner".
On Radio 5 he slammed Prof Lockwood and other protagonists of man-made Global warming for describing light variations from the sun as 'solar activity' when the correct understanding of the term is the Sun's particle and magnetic effects. "This changing of the meaning of words is typical of state-sponsored faith systems and Professor Lockwood should be ashamed of himself" he said, as Professor Lockwood tried to shout over him.
Piers pointed out that the solar particle activity based forecasting system he uses had for example correctly predicted (and also announced at the Institute of Physics on 7th June) the period of intense heavy rain and flooding 24th-26th June and he taunted Prof Lockwood with the question "What did you forecast, Professor?"
On BBC TV News 24 Piers explained in an interview with Tim Wilcox: "To understand the effect of solar activity on the Earth you must consider how solar charged particles get to the Earth and that is governed by the magnetic cycle of the sun which is 22 years long. This solar activity magnetic link is why world temperatures have a main cycle of 22 years and no CO2 based theory can explain that. Geomagnetic activity which is the measure of solar particles hitting the Earth's magnetic field has been generally rising from 1910 to around 1990 or 2000 and rising temperatures over this period correlate very well with this ˆmuch better than they do with carbon dioxide." Solar activity effect, measured and estimated in a proper way (not by light) and geomagnetic activity are now declining and this (assisted by modulations through magnetic connections) is causing the decline in world temperatures since 2002/3*.
[<snip a bit>
He said that present CO2 changes are of no importance whatsoever because feedback effects mean changes in CO2 have no net driving influence on world temperatures and there is no evidence that they ever had over the last 100,000 years. On request from Tim Wilcox, he forecast "that UK and World temperatures will continue to fall for the next few years even though CO2 may continue to rise".
Nigel Calder who had appeared earlier on News24 also said that the reason for the present flatness or decline in world temperatures is the decrease in solar activity.
Later Piers said: "It is great that BBC Radio 5 and BBC TV News 24 carried our views, even briefly, but we are just tokens, the BBC is a Global warming hysteria brainwashing machine. It is totally unacceptable that their web site now carries floods of carefully prepared Global Warming pseudo-science yet not a peep or a link to the contributions from Nigel Calder or myself or anything critical*. It blandly claims that two scientists who would be critical of Prof Lockwood's attacks on science—Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen ˆ 'could not be reached for comment'. Strange the BBC Environment Correspondent Richard Black didn't say 'but Nigel Calder and Piers Corbyn were and this is what they said (etc)'!
<snip the rest of it>
Copies of Piers Corbyn's presentation material as made available at the Institute Of Physics on June 7th and also Prof Lockwood's paper are available: request by email: piers AT weatheraction.com"